Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 43

Marriage details in lede

User:Dcpoliticaljunkie and I seem to disagree about the amount of detail about Jefferson's marriage that should go into the lede. Jefferson is a topic with an enormous amount of material. The lede can only give a very rough summary of the most important aspects of his life. I don't think the cause of Martha's death is important enough to make the cut (it's his biography, not hers), and her request that he should not remarry is widely reported, but considered apocryphal by some experts. So I would prefer to exclude these from the lede. But I'm happy to hear other opinions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Your argument makes sense. This like West Point, does not belong in the lede but some editors want to load it up with things the sources would reasonably suggest do not go in a lead. It is this kind of stuff that caused this article to not be improved during recent good article review. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, cut Martha, cut Hemings. Domestic arrangements do not belong in the intro IMO. They are not salient enough to the biography of a public person. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No. We don't need more ipsa dixit - we need reasoned argument from sources and WP:LEAD - it is moreover a plain bizarre argument to make that a person's personal life does not belong in the lead of their biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Either the details about Jefferson's personal life belong in the lede, including both his wife and legitimate children and Hemmings, or none of it does. It appears that there was strong opinion that Hemmings belonged in the lede so I added the additional personal details. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't need more ipsa fixit, we need to find a consistent editorial policy regarding inclusion or exclusion of domestic arrangements for the introduction, since both Martha and Sally are treated in the biographical narrative as written. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No one is proposing removing everything about Martha from the lede, nor his legitimate children. So, you are not even addressing the argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec, re DC): That's a false dichotomy. We don't put all details about Jefferson's personal life into the lede - neither with Hemings, nor with Martha. We put the most salient points on both in. The question is where to put the bar (or bars - there is no requirement that x words on Hemings need to be balanced by x words on Martha). I've described above why I think that these particular details don't make the cut. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I restored the term "most historians" to the lede, per the source (TJF). Saying "historians believe" by itself more than suggests that all historians are on the same page regarding this controversial issue. As has been pointed out before there are many prominent historians who don't go along with this highly subjective claim. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the reduced detail about Martha makes the most sense for keepiong the lede concise. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The lede, as it reads now, seems okay. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Final(?) draft/proposal for Church and State-2

The @TheVirginiaHistorian: seems to be incorporating the items in the original proposal above into the text nicely. Bear in mind @Cmguy777: that the place for Jefferson's personal religious views would be under Religion. Coverage of Church and State, which albeit relates to religion in terms of how it effected government and ultimately, the people, belongs under Political and religious views. Both TVH and Coemgenus mention an important issue. i.e.Jefferson's non belief in a Holy Trinity. We might want to mention this specifically under the Religion section, which, all by itself, would put Jefferson's beliefs in perspective with conventional Christian thought.

If there is any concern or doubt as to the importance Jefferson placed on separating the church from the government (State), I would recommend reading the first couple of paragraphs in Chapter XVII in Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia. (The 2nd paragraph really nails the idea of Jefferson's disdain for religious involvement in government.) Again, the idea of separating the church from governmental affairs was the crux of Jefferson's thinking regarding Governmental reform for the simple reason that the Church too often was at the center of corruption during Jefferson's time and before. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, a separation between Jefferson’s "personal views" section and coverage of "Church and State". Well then, for Jefferson, religion had to be demoted from its co-governance within the functions of the temporal state if a democratic republic were to be founded on reason. The various established churches of Europe corrupted civil governance and were repeatedly perverted to justification of burning at the stake, torture and religious war in his time. Something like this from Stone and Jefferson’s “Notes” should be crafted into an introductory sentence for “Church and State". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The problem of church corruption was so pervasive throughout most of Europe it was the main reason many (most?) people emigrated to the new world in Jefferson's time. This perspective indeed should be made clear in the narrative. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Are you going to include Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious in your above draft? Also, it seems we need a good intro statement for Jefferson and Church and State. Could you incorportate the following sentence into your draft? "Jefferson was a prominent proponent of Separation of Church and State throughout his political career". Thnx -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think its time to start editing on the Religion section. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done I made narration changes to the Religious section and added references following suggestions made in the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

West Point in lede

We should get this settled once and for all.

Some editors feel West Point should be mentioned in the lede some do not. The item has been included and deleted several times now so we should try to resolve this.

Here is the statement in question. Please signify for or against for its inclusion in the lede. Please leave any comments under comments.

Jefferson founded the United States Military Academy at West Point.

• For -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Against -- YoPienso (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• For -- Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• For -- along with mention of UVA, but placed in the following (4th) paragraph. See comments. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Against. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Against together with the majority of editors who have discussed this recently. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Against Rjensen (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Against. See above - I don't think it makes the cut. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• For Please see comments below. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Against. Hoppyh (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Against TFD (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

West Point is one of Jefferson's major and unprecedented accomplishments, covered by more than enough RS's to be mentioned in lede. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

West Point is NOT one of Jefferson's major and unprecedented accomplishments. Gwillhickers doesn't understand WP:WEIGHT: he has compiled a list of 12 sources that clearly demonstrate signing the bill to officially establish West Point was just a blip among his achievements. West Point itself, as Onuf points out on p. 180 in the book Gw' links to, doesn't "embrace Jefferson as a true founder." West Point's own history page gives precedence to Sylvanus Thayer as the "father of the Military Academy."

The list of sources was apparently generated by googling; Ambrose doesn't even mention TJ and West Point together. (Also, Ellis, 2008, mentions West Point only on p. 336.) I checked all of them and therefore know they DO NOT make a big deal out of TJ's signing of that bill. Something of such minor significance (little weight) in TJ's life shouldn't be in the lede. YoPienso (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, please see comments by Alanscottwalker, Stephan Schulz, and myself in the section above, West Point in Lead.

A brief summary of West Point's founding by The U.S. Army Center of Military History in a blue box on p. 122. A military guard under Washington was stationed at West Point immediately after the Revolution. The rank of cadet was created in 1794, while he was president. The summary ends, "That date [March 16, 1802] marks the official birth of the U.S. Military Academy, but the institution's organization and funding remained uncertain for more than a decade." YoPienso (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I note at the US Army Center of Military History, "By ordering that instruction, President Jefferson reversed his early opposition to a military academy, seeing it as a way of promoting the study of engineering and science in the growing nation." This commitment to education and the spread of knowledge in service to the nation was also reflected in his commitment to the University of Virginia. The WP passage belongs in the next paragraph, the fourth, along with reference to UVA…beginning, ”Jefferson was a polymath…[last sentence]…His interest in the spread of knowledge in the new nation led him to promote both the United States Military Academy and the University of Virginia." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, we must keep the lede tight, and this is not one of the signature facts about Jefferson. Pairing it with UVA has a certain merit, since they're both schools, but I thought TJ was more involved in UVA than USMA. I know that he considered UVA one of his great achievements. Not so USMA. Let's leave it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A Brief History of West Point The actual westpoint.edu cite does mention Jefferson as the President who signed legislation that authorized West Point. Jefferson wanted West Point to be representative of the United States. "President Thomas Jefferson signed legislation establishing the United States Military Academy in 1802. He took this action after ensuring that those attending the Academy would be representative of a democratic society." The law must have been signifigant if Congressmen chose who would attend the Academy. The website does say "Colonel Sylvanus Thayer, the "father of the Military Academy," served as Superintendent from 18l7-1833." I would say that it is worth mentioning Jefferson founded West Point in the lede if there is editor concensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Jefferson's institutional point is to build an officer corps based on merit from across the entire nation, avoiding a sectional or hereditary officer corps. I suppose that can be taken for granted after a while... though even modern history offers countless examples of militaries divorced from the general population leading to oppressive governance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

TVH, I always appreciate your thoughtful, informed, and intelligent comments. I strongly think West Point should not be in the lead, but if it had to be, it should go where you say. It's terribly out of place where it is now. If you read Cogliano that Gwillhickers linked to, you will see TJ was savvy on this. He didn't care much for the military at all, slashing its budget and deployment. He never was a soldier or officer. But he saw that signing the bill would oppose the Cincinnati as well as provide education for future officers. Most importantly, it would provide a corps of engineers. They formed a philosophical society very early on! TJ wasn't much interested in defense, but cleverly signed the bill to boost education and produce engineers to build roads and bridges forts. But this wasn't something of great significance in his life.

Coemgenus,I agree with you 100%.

Cmguy777, please see my new section below on weight and summary style. YoPienso (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Odd that we are discussing Jefferson's role in West Point when the article says nothing about his opposition to standing armies, or his policies on national defense in general. TFD (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is up to editors to decide the weight of an issue in the article or lede section. I already mentioned that depends on editor consensus. I believe mentioning Jefferson founded West Point is signifigant enough for the lede as an editor using the westpoint.edu as a source. If Westpoint mentions Jefferson as creating the insitution to bring person's (during Jefferson's times European Americans) from around the nation. That is signifigant. Of course mentioning that Jefferson dismantled the Navy and Army is appropriate for the article too. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

"We should get this settled once and for all." We all voted now let's move on. Rjensen (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen is correct -- let's move on. However, West point re:Jefferson's thinking needs to be better summarized. Currently there is next to no info where Jefferson's thinking is concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Weight and summary style

Explanation of WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALASPS, and WP:SUMMARY as pertaining to this article

It seems some editors don't understand WP:WEIGHT and WP:SUMMARY, so here's a brief explanation. First, WP:WEIGHT is found in Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV), second of the five basic "pillars" of Wikipedia (WP:5P). Copy and paste: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Note in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources and how undue weight can be given . . .. This principle is pertinent to questions about Sally Hemings. We are supposed to emphasize what the majority of mainstream historians agree on. We stick with the academic consensus. Yes, we include contrarians' views, but we do not give their opinions the same prominence, or weight, if you will, that we do to the consensus of mainstream academicians. This doesn't imply that the contrarians aren't educated or part of academia, but shows their views are not accepted by the majority of their peers. Now, summary style (WP:SUMMARY), an editing guideline, is essential when writing an encyclopedia article for Wikipedia. An article here is NOT an exhaustive study of the subject, but a summary. Copy and paste from the "Rationale" section of that page: This style of organizing articles is somewhat related to news style except that it focuses on topics instead of articles. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic. Breakout methods should anticipate the various details levels that typical readers will look for. This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book length. Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front, by summarizing main points and going into more details on particular points (subtopics) in separate articles. What constitutes "too long" is largely based on the topic, but generally 30 kilobytes of readable prose is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover their topics and that the extra reading time is justified. Sections that are less important for understanding the topic will tend to be lower in the article (this is news style applied to sections). Often this is difficult to do for articles on history or that are otherwise chronologically based, unless there is some type of analysis section. Organizing in this way is important because many readers will not finish reading the article. This is pertinent to the inclusion of West Point in the lead. When I call that "trivia," I'm not trivializing the importance of the U.S. Military Academy! I'm saying that signing the bill that established it wasn't greatly important in TJ's life. No major general biographer gives much space to that detail. Of course books or articles written specifically on TJ and West Point do! But this article we're writing is supposed to be a general biography. Therefore, we do NOT emphasize details that were of relatively little importance in his long and productive life. Some editors seem to think that if a fact is verifiable and well-sourced it should be included. No! There's one more bar to pass: is it significant? When we say to omit that detail from the lead, we don't deny it is true or suggest only cranks support it. We just say it isn't significant enough to be given that place of prominence. YoPienso (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Yes, and as Wikipedia:Verifiability policy says, such WP:DUE and WP:PAGEDECIDE(WP:SPINOFF) disputes are settled by omitting the information unless a positive consensus exists to include it. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.") Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC) So here's a hypothetical example: Let's say President Obama invites YoPienso to the Oval Office. Which page could that be added to? Obama's BLP or YoP's user page? Although it's true (hypothetically) and verifiable by the President's schedule and the article in YoP's local paper, it is insignificant to Obama's life and therefore will not be included in his BLP. OK, what about something actual and significant occasioned by a presidential signature? President Obama signed into law the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in 2009, empowering the FDA to control Big Tobacco. It was a controversial act that resulted in domestic and international litigation. Yet it's not even mentioned in Obama's FA-BLP. Why not? Even though one source lists it as the 30th most important bill he's signed and we consider it merits a full article, it just isn't significant enough to include in his basic biography. It is in the daughter article of his presidency. Ergo, West Point is a significant American institution officially established over TJ's signature. But signing that bill was only a blip in his life and does not merit inclusion in this general biography. It is appropriately mentioned at United States Military Academy and enlarged on at History of the United States Military Academy. YoPienso (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC) I agree that West Point is not significant to the article. As a leading revolutionary, democrat and diplomat, and one of the most historically significant secretaries of state, vice presidents and presidents, with extensive writing and accomplishments, not to mention his personal life, there is just too much material to put all of it into this article. The specific section of neutrality that should guide us is "Balancing aspects:" "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." We should present the details of his life with the same emphasis that reputable biographers do. TFD (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks for this, YoPienso, this was a good explanation of the policy and how we must apply it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Oxford comma

I notice this article (and Wikipedia in general) is inconsistent in its use of the Oxford comma. Does anyone know if there is a style guide regarding its use on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 09:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, at MOS:OXFORD. YoPienso (talk) 10:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have done alot of editing of TJ over the past several months and have consistently adopted the convention of omitting the Oxford comma. Hoppyh (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

That's probably an error on your part, then, since this is an article about an American president. From Serial comma:

"In American English, a majority of style guides mandate use of the serial comma, including APA style, The Chicago Manual of Style, The MLA Style Manual, Strunk and White's Elements of Style, and the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual." YoPienso (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Fowler's agrees with you as well. Hoppyh (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the article now consistently employs the Oxford comma throughout. Hoppyh (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for undertaking that tedious chore! YoPienso (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Final(?) draft/proposal for Church and State

Here is what I hope will be a final draft for the Church and State topic. One of the sources, Stone, 1922, needs to be replaced with a more modern source, while the statement/2nd prgh covering 'Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom' needs to be cited.  Done

---

Jefferson was a prominent proponent of separation of church and state throughout his career. For Jefferson, 'separation of church and state' was a necessary reform from the religious "tyranny" common in Europe for centuries, wherein a religion received state endorsement, and those not of that religion were denied rights and even punished. He believed religion was a wholly personal choice in which government had no right to compel anyone's observance, and opposed the establishment of any state sponsored religion. <Stone, 1922, p.138> However, he believed organized religion would always be a factor in political affairs and, therefore, encouraged reasoned inquiry to questions of faith. <Meacham, 2012, pp. 471-473>

In 1779 he drafted the The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which after the revolution became state law in 1786. The statute disestablished the Church of England in Virginia and guaranteed freedom of religion to people of all religious faiths.<Peterson, p.p.viii, 81-84>

When Jefferson was president he was accused by the Federalists of being hostile to religion and an atheist. He publicly reaffirmed and clarified his view in an 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, who were concerned their religious freedoms were threatened by state law based on an outdated colonial law. Jefferson maintained that a 'wall of separation between church and state' was a principle demanded by the First Amendment, which would take precedence over any state laws limiting religious freedom. <Bernstine, 2003, p.138> The phrase 'Separation of Church and State' has been cited several times by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The Statute for Religious Freedom is one of only three accomplishments Jefferson chose to have inscribed in the epitaph on his gravestone. <Peterson, 2003, p.315> <W.W. Hening, ed., Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. 12 (1823): 84–86.>

---

Some of us seem to be spreading our efforts out a bit too thin, so I recommend that we get this topic squared away asap so we don't have several unresolved discussions occurring at the same time.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

First impressions: The narration comes off a bit one sided or there is lack of critical assessment. Stone (1922) is a 93 year old source. Jefferson looks to be the "martyr" being "accused" by the Federalists. Jefferson was elected twice as President and his religious views were never put on public trial nor was he jailed for his religious views. There seems to be alot of emphasis on seperation of Church and State. Jefferson is presented as a civil rights lawyer, but did he try any civil rights religious cases? This is just an honest assessment. Other editors are free to have their own opinions. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, Stone, 1922 needs to be replaced. It doesn't matter if Jefferson never(?) tried any civil rights religious cases -- he was a major and outspoken proponent of the idea throughout his political career. Jefferson felt Church and State was so important to governmental reform that it was one of only three things he chose to inscribe on his epitaph. On that note alone the topic should be well covered. The Church-State issue is at the crux of Jefferson's political thinking. Again, this topic is well covered by the Scholarship and there are many dedicated books on the topic. If anyone can locate some "critical assessment" I'm sure most knowledgeable editors would be interested in seeing it, but we should leave commentary out of the section, as this isn't really a controversial or contested issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The section does not even get near Jefferson's actual religious views; taking out miracles from the Gospels in his "Bible"; Jesus is viewed a moral reformer rather then savior; was Jefferson baptized ? --- These should be discussed. Replace Stone (1922) by who ? I was hoping this would be a discussion rather then just one view against another. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This should be a good source for the section: Sanford, Charles B. (1984). The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1131-1. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Alternative paragraph proposal:

• Jefferson's religious life has been discussed and evaluated by scholars and historians. Most historians have a high regard for Jefferson's writings and political actions protecting the religious faith of an individuals conscious and for championing the complete seperation of Church and State. In 1779 Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which after the revolution became state law in 1786. More controversial was Jefferson's own personal beliefs having been attacked by Federalist opposition that viewed Jefferson was a "French infidel and athiest". Jefferson believed that the source of attacks on his faith came from the clergy who wanted to establish their own religion mandatorily on others. According to historian Henry Randall Jefferson was baptized in the Episcipalian Church and he was taught his prayers by his mother. During times of crisis and for devotions Jefferson would read his Bible. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Jefferson did not hold himself to Calvanist doctrines common for his times. Jefferson believed knowledge of God came through reason rather then supernatural revelation. Jefferson viewed that real Christians believed and followed the simple teaching of Jesus. Jefferson himself wrote his own bible that presented the simple teachings of Christ without miracles. Jefferson studied Enlightment Diests to form his own views of God. Jefferson held Jesus to be a great man but he denied his divinity as the Son of God. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

---

John Adams was also vitriolic in his condemnation of Calvanism. What Jefferson apart was his denial of the Trinity -- the Triune God which most Christian denominations profess. Jefferson adamantly believed in one creator God, an afterlife with consequences for actions here, and that the sum of the best moral teaching is to love God and to love one's neighbor, as sourced to Meacham. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to focus on Calvinism is to miss the point. Jefferson rejected the entire concept of the Trinity, which set him apart from nearly every Christian in the world. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Unitarian movement was getting up some pretty good steam just about then, so Jefferson wasn't the only Christian to reject the concept of the Trinity. YoPienso (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So in the following draft, we have a consolidation of all three proposals with references from Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Onuf 2007, Randall 1994, Jefferson, "Life and Morals”, Sanford 1984, Meacham 2012, Wood 2010, Yarborough 2006, Finkleman 2006, Hening 1823, Ferling 2013. New material in bold.

Jefferson was influenced by deism,[236] although he generally referred to himself as a Christian. He abandoned "orthodox" Christianity after his review of New Testament teachings.[237] Nevertheless, in 1803 he asserted, “I am Christian, in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished any one to be."<Randall, 1858, pp.556> Jefferson praised the morality of Jesus and edited a compilation of his biblical teachings, omitting miraculous or supernatural references. He titled the work, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly known today as the Jefferson Bible.[238] Jefferson was baptized into and was a governing member of his local Episcopal Church, which he later attended with his daughters.[239]

He donated to the American Bible Society, saying that the four evangelists delivered a “pure and sublime system of morality” to mankind. He thought Americans would rationally create “Apiarian” religion, extracting the best traditions of every denomination.<Meacham, 2012, pp. 472-473> And he contributed generously to several local denominations nearby Monticello.<Randall, 1994, pp. 555> Acknowledging that organized religion always would be a factor in political life for good or ill, he encouraged the application of reason to questions of faith. He believed in a creator God, an afterlife and the sum of religion as loving God and neighbors. But he also controversially renounced the conventional Christian Trinity, denying Jesus divinity as the Son of God.<Meacham, 2012, pp. 471-473><Sanford, 1984, pp. 85-86.>

Jefferson was firmly anticlerical, writing that in "every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon."[241] In 1777, he drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The Act was ratified in 1786, making it unlawful to compel men to attend or donate money to any state sanctioned religious establishment and declaring that men "shall be free to profess ... their opinions in matters of religion."[242] He once supported banning clergy from public office but later relented.[243] Early in 1802 Jefferson reiterated his agreement with the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association, “that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God”. He interpreted the First Amendment as having built “a wall of separation between Church and State.”<Meacham, 2012, pp. 369-370> The phrase 'Separation of Church and State' has been cited several times by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The Statute for Religious Freedom is one of only three accomplishments Jefferson chose to have inscribed in the epitaph on his gravestone.<Peterson, 2003, p.315> <W.W. Hening, ed., Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. 12 (1823): 84–86.>

Jefferson's unorthodox religious beliefs became an important issue in the 1800 presidential contest. Opponents attacked him as an atheist and infidel; Wood described it as "the most damaging charge [Jefferson's] opponents ever made against him".[244] Federalists prophesied that Jefferson’s election would call down God’s vengeance on the United States, New Englanders were warned he would confiscate Bibles, the choice was between “a religious president or … Jefferson and no God.” <Ferling, 2013, p. 322> As president, Jefferson countered the accusations by praising religion in his inaugural address and attending services at the Capitol.[244]

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest a footnote on “Apiarian” religion to his letter on the subject. YoPienso (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yopienso:, agree. if there are to be two sections, one on personal belief and one on church-and-state, then the Apiarian quote should be paraphrased in the personal belief section, "were I to be the founder of a new sect. I would call them Apiarians, and, after the example of the bee, advise them to extract the honey of every sect. my fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the paragraph is better...the main issue in my alternate paragraph was that Jefferson did not believe in supernatural revelation, but rather revelation through scientific reasoning or personal study...That's why he took the miracles out of the Gospels...Jefferson was not influenced by diesm, rather contemporary Diest authors of his times... Sanford differentiates betweens Jefferson's private faith and his advocacy of religous freedom and concious. Calvinism was extremely influencial in the founding of puritan British America. Going against the Calvanist grain in the "Puritan" New England was not popular even for Jefferson's times. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Ah, so you and Gwillhickers are looking at crafting TWO passages, one for Jefferson's personal private belief he developed from reason, distinguished from faith in the (to him incomprehensible) Triune God, with Jesus as one of the Trinity. A second passage on church-and-state would include reference to Jefferson's promoting disestablishment of the Calvinist churches in New England. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Jefferson's personal religious views and his religious political views should both be covered in the article, possibly one or two section. Jefferson may have viewed the Trinity as somewhat "pagan" in the sense of multiple Roman or Greek gods or polythiesm. Jefferson apparently had an Old Testament or Mosaic view of one God. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"Controversially"

The text currently states: "But he also controversially renounced the conventional Christian Trinity, denying Jesus' divinity as the Son of God."

This is simply Nontrinitarianism and it was an ideological movement during the Age of Enlightenment. For example the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 allowed Nontrinitarian worship in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. How controversial is taking a common stance of your day and age? Dimadick (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Sanford, p. 88. YoPienso (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As Yopienso points out, the ideological movement of Nontrinitarianism did not spread widely in America as did, say, the First Great Awakening which had faith in a Triune God. Apart from intellectual history, we have the political history of Jefferson's opponents who used his expressed doubt of Jesus' divinity to suggest he was anti-religious and unhinged from moral restraint without a God. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The controversy is mentioned in the following paragraph; Jefferson was not considered a Christian by the "Puritan" federalist north. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread out too thin

We seem to be spreading ourselves out way too thin here, introducing new topics/issues before existing ones are resolved. I would recommend that we resolve and compromise on the non resolved issues before we initiate new ones. I was gone one day, only to come back and see several new issues appear while the existing issues still need to be resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Colony of Virginia, British subject

I've changed "Virginia" to "Colony of Virginia" as clarifying and removed "and was a British subject at birth" as redundant. I checked out several other bios of Americans born before the revolution and didn't find that note. It's self-evident that a person born in the Colonies was a British subject. We may as well add that TJ was a white male homo sapiens. YoPienso (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we can get away with it. Most American readers will believe the American 1700s colonists had all the rights of those British born and residing in England. Their colonial charters as private companies, proprietorships and royal colonies all guaranteed that to all settlers and their posterity regardless of European origin. Perhaps readers worldwide will bring that foreknowledge to the article also. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not " self-evident that a person born in the Colonies was a British subject" -- that was not true for India for example--To be a "British subject" in India your father had to be born in Britain [Your mother did not matter]. Only British subjects could sit on juries. see James Jaffe (2015). Ironies of Colonial Governance: Law, Custom and Justice in Colonial India. pp. 234–35. Rjensen (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the context means American colonies. YoPienso (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I doubt many readers know the colonial rules. how many know whether or not a Virginia slave was a "British subject" ??? Rjensen (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

For that issue, see generally Partus sequitur ventrem, compare [1] Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Good grief! This bio isn't about India or the legal status of slaves! I'm just saying anybody should realize Jefferson was born a British subject.

The very first sentence says he was "principal author of the Declaration of Independence" and the first sentence of the second paragraph says "Jefferson was a proponent of democracy, republicanism and individual rights, which motivated American colonists to break from Great Britain and form a new nation." How could anybody not realize, "Hey, this guy wasn't born an American, he was born British!" Who cares if they know he was technically a subject or a citizen? YoPienso (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

We just say he was born a British subject, (he was NOT a British citizen because that status did not exist anywhere). Who cares? people who want the facts care. Rjensen (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I care. I agree Rjensen. Jefferson was a British subject prior to 1776. I don't believe that needed to be removed. British subject gives status to Jefferson and the rest of the Viriginia colonists. Saying Jefferon was "an American" gives Jefferson American citizenship prior to 1776. Jefferson was not born independent of Britain. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Erm, it says right in the very first line he was a Founding Father, with a blue link to the article that explains, "The term 'Founding Fathers of the United States of America' refers broadly to the individuals of the Thirteen British Colonies in North America who led the American Revolution against the authority of the British Crown and established the United States of America." How could any reader fail to understand they were British before they were American? TJ's bio isn't the place to go into the nuances of British subjecthood. YoPienso (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to include every little obvious detail, let's tell our readers TJ was a straight white male human being. (Sarcasm.) YoPienso (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The article already says the colonies were "under the authority of the British Crown." While that does not necessarily mean the colonists had the same nationality status as subjects born in Great Britain, its clear that they were subject to the King. Other than the U.S. and a few other countries, the status of British subject has never been revoked for citizens of former colonies, although they are now called "Commonwealth citizens." So Indians resident in the UK today may vote, sit on juries, etc. But we do not add "Commonwealth citizen" to the biographies of Commonwealth citizens. TFD (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, but will point out the line "under the authority of the British Crown" is in the Founding Fathers article, not this one. YoPienso (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a very strange thing to add. Do any of Jefferson's biographers discuss his citizenship status? --Coemgenus (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

More correctly nationality status - British citizenship was only created in 1948. I do not see the nationality of citizens of dependent states ever mentioned unless it is relevant. All the disciples for example were Roman subjects, but St. Paul was a Roman citizen and therefore was provided the right of trial in Rome. So biblical scholars always mention his citizenship, but not the status of other apostles although it is implicitly clear they owed allegiance to Caesar. TFD (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It gets violently complicated after 1783. Anyone born in the Am colonies was permanently a British subject according to English law, even after the USA was recognized. Hence the RN impressed thousands of American-born sailors as British subjects when Jefferson was president. = a major cause of war of 1812. Not until 1870 could anyone renounce his British status, see Randall Hansen; Patrick Weil (2002). Dual Nationality, Social Rights and Federal Citizenship in the U.S. and Europe: The Reinvention of Citizenship. p. 183. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 December 2015

I am not sure who left that last comment. It seems that nationality does have legal affect if in fact the Royal Navy was impressing Americans as "British subjects". In my view that is reason enough to add Jefferson's legal status as a British subject. Coemgenus brings up a good point. Are their any Jefferson biographers that mention Jefferson being a "British subject"? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

British law accepted that Americans had lost British nationality. See Doe v Acklam 1824. While some British captains may not have, the main U.S. complaint was that naturalized Americans were still considered British subjects. More often the captains put the burden of proof that sailors were not British subjects, and ignored proof even when provided. But Jefferson was not naturalized or impressed into the Royal Navy, and American envoys sent to the UK were not charged with treason. TFD (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ralph G. Giordano (2012) says Jefferson was born a British subject. Source The Architectural Ideology of Thomas Jefferson page 9 "At the time of his [Jefferson] birth, however, he was still a British subject under the direct rule of the king of England and Parliment." Cmguy777 (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

We are getting off track arguing British impressment of American sailors, i.e. Doe v Acklam in 1824. Jefferson was born in "1743", before American independence in 1776, and before the 1824 Doe v Acklam. The discussion is not on being a British subject after 1776 independence. The subject of discussion is Jefferson's legal status at birth. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Certainly Doe v Acklam was decided in 1824, but it merely confirmed what had been the law since 1783 and had been accepted by the British government. There is nothing special about Jefferson's nationality that distinguishes him from any of the other leaders of the U.S. revolution. TFD (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I gave the Giordano (2012) source. What source says "There is nothing special about Jefferson's nationality that distinguishes him from any other leaders of the U.S. Revolution"? We are not talking 1824 or 1783, but rather the time of Jefferson's birth. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No one questions that Jefferson was born a British subject. But the fact it is mentioned once in a book on Jefferson and Architecture does not elevate it to the sufficient weight it merits inclusion. And I do not need a source that says there was nothing special about his nationality you need a source that says it was. Scholars do not spend a lot of time writing explaining why facts are not special. What do you think was special about his status compared for example with G. Washington? TFD (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

My opinion does not matter concerning Jefferson birth as a British subject. I gave a reliable Giordano (2012) source. Editor opinion does not outweigh a reliable source such as Giordano (2012). I don't speak for scholars or on what or why they choose to write on Jefferson. This is not a comparison article. As far as Washington is concerned, yes, he was born a wealthy British subject just like Jefferson and that needs to be mentioned in the George Washington article too if there is a reliable source. Giordano (2012) is a reliable source concerning Jefferson. Wikipedia is concerned about reliable sourcing, not specifically the number of reliable sources used in the article. 21:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, no one questions that Jefferson was a British subject. The issue is whether it is sufficiently important to include, per "Balancing aspects." There's lots of trivia that can be reliably sourced. If we added it all, the article would run into thousands of pages. TFD (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we going to rehash every item of detail in this article? We'll be here for years. We already resolved this and Hoppy made the edit, based on consensus, with no further objections. The average reader will not know Jefferson was a British subject simply by mentioning Jefferson's place of birth. We had this discussion and the item was included -- but for some reason another editor feels this topic should be rehashed and take up several more pages of debate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If we just stick with what historians consider important than we will finish quickly. But if we throw in every bit of trivia that someone finds important then it will take a long time. TFD (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just removed Gwillhickers' addition of this trifle. His edit summary was, "restore point of context -- no consensus to delete. Please discuss further if this is still an issue." My edit summary was, ""no consensus to delete"??? You mean no consensus to *add*. Check the talk page." YoPienso (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not stick to a fundamental Wikipedia policy of having a reliable source and edit accordingly ? Giordano (2012) is a reliable source. Giordano (2012) discusses Jefferson's legal status. True Ralph G. Giordano is a registered architect and is not a main Jefferson biographer and his focus is on architecture, but he is reliable. Jefferson was an architect too. Also the DOI, mainly written by Jefferson, specifically focuses on King George III. This in essense emphasizes Jefferson's British subject aristocratic heritage. What makes Jefferson different is that the DOI changed the legal status of all Americans. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing does not mean something should be in the article. The relevant policy is "Balancing aspects" - we should only include facts that sources consider significant. Otherwise the article could run into thousands of pages as everyone adds some insignificant bit of trivia he thinks is important. TFD (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: -- "thousands of pages"?? Straw man. We are discussing significant points of context -- not 'insignificant bits of trivia'. e.g. Jefferson had two brown freckles behind his left ear. That is trivia. i.e.not much to do with anything but perhaps interesting. OTOH, British subject is a point of context added to the sentence/narrative, and ties in with Jefferson's nationality and the existing political situation between Britain and the colonies at that time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So you abandoned your argument we should mention Jefferson's nationality because it is reliably sourced. You now argue it is "significant," which is what "Balancing aspects" requires. But that guideline requires we provide "a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." TFD (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A Merry Christmas to us all, God bless us every one!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!!!

Hello Thomas Jefferson, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, YoPienso (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

.

LOL!! I don't know how to make it out to all you editors, but I sorta like wishing that TJ be surrounded by peace, success and happiness. YoPienso (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That was nice. Thanks for these thoughts! God bless to all, peace on earth and good will toward men. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Support God bless you all! Hoppyh (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

More gaps in the narrative

As @The Four Deuces: points out, there is (also) nothing in the biography about Jefferson's opposition to standing armies, or his policies on national defense in general. This should be covered in conjunction with West Point, in terms of Jefferson's thinking. As McDonald points out, much of the debate between Jefferson and the Federalists, esp Hamilton, eager for war with France, is what prompted Jefferson to replace military elitists with Republican minded officers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue of a sentence or two on West Point for Thomas Jefferson's biography is a perfect example of whether the article should reflect the historic times as documented by good scholarship, or recent historiographic fashion with anachronistic blind eye. I explored a reliable source previously accepted here in the GA Review, Robert M.S. McDonald 2004. Jefferson was honored as the USMA founder, patron and creator --- until the 1830s when under the superintendency of Sylvanus Thayer, George Washington began to be emphasized in the historical memory of academy ceremonial tribute.<McDonald, Robert M.S., “Thomas Jefferson’s Military Academy: founding West Point”, UVA Press, 2004, p.183> The issue is nothing less than whether to briefly acknowledge “West Point and the struggle to render the Officer Corps safe for America”. I propose, in addition to the first existing sentence:

In 1802, the President and Congress established the United States Military Academy at West Point.[116] In the face of open contempt of the new civilian rule expressed by many officers and appointed officials in the Army establishment, Jefferson undertook to “Republicanize” the Army to ensure its loyalty to future elected administrations. While the military academy was central to his long term purpose consistent with his devotion to education, Jefferson also immediately replaced Federalists in government, eliminated offices by legislation and insisted that new appointments only went to Republican faithful.<Crackel, Theodore J., in McDonald, Robert ed. 2004 p.100> This was consistent with Jefferson’s mature “contextualist” interpretation of the Constitution in which he allowed broad interpretation for the federal government in nationalistic spheres without shared powers strictly enumerated with the states.<Mayer, David N. in McDonald, ed. 2004 p.55> Subsequently, West Point alumni in uniform and as civilian leaders from 1802-1833 furnished both administrative and executive national leadership in the frontier territories, both nationally oriented and nationwide.<Watson, Samuel J. in McDonald, Robert ed. 2004 p.155>

Mayer in McDonald 2004 notes that critics who believe Jefferson abandoned States Rights in his presidency mischaracterize his mature "contextualist" Constitutional interpretation which was extremely broad for nationalistic purposes such as Louisiana Purchase, the Embargo and West Point, and remained strict constructionist when it related to powers shared with states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good -- excellent writing. There is plenty of modern day coverage for West Point, i.e.dedicated books and sources also used in this biography, so it's a little troublesom to see a topic like West Point brushed aside by a couple of other editors as if Jefferson was nothing more than a stock clerk there. West Point was a major accomplishment which set the basis for a good national defense (i.e.highly educated and capable officers) and set the pace for the math and science curriculum at University of Virginia and other institutions of higher learning, for openers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem with including all that in this article is that it is far too detailed and too long. I suggest working it into History of the United States Military Academy, which has less detail. United States Military Academy has even less. That alone is sufficient to show it's too much for this one, to which West Point is tangential. Let's remember that for this general bio of TJ we determine appropriate weight by the weight given in secondary general bios. Also, it's important to keep in mind that the West Point we think of was created by Sylvanus Thayer. The West Point Jefferson founded was a more direct ancestor of the Army Corp of Engineers.

McDonald is right of mainstream, btw, yet reprints liberal, mainstream Peter Onuf's essay that argues TJ deserves more credit than 20th-century scholarship gave him in founding West Point. So, the pendulum is beginning to swing back the other way now. YoPienso (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You miss the point in concerns about the history of West point rather than the importance of West Point in Jefferson’s presidency. Neither “the West Point we think of” nor the Army Department is a danger to elective civilian control now, nor was it for Jefferson, Madison and Monroe in the young republic. So the point of Jefferson’s constitutional thinking, the innovation of the cadet selection nationwide, and the nationally oriented impact of the USMA alumni on the frontiers, as sourced, prior to Sylvanus Thayer, is significant enough for a total of 150 words here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point--major biographers show West Point was not very important in Jefferson's presidency. Put your 150 in the history of West Point article. YoPienso (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As I said in my opening statement in this section, "this is a perfect example of whether the article should reflect the historic times as documented by good scholarship, or recent historiographic fashion with anachronistic blind eye.” After a couple of days of discussion, I’d like to see another poll for agree/disagree with the passage.

Are you sure purging all references outside of the major biographers is the way to GA status in a collaborative venture? I do like the idea of cutting text with references to original source documents which depend upon editor interpretation for context. That is a favorite technique of Lost Cause ideologues to insinuate their POV into history articles. It may be that the Declaration says something which implies something of interest to the modern ear, but if it is not quoted in context in a major biography, the related passage should be cut from this article.

Okay, for the sake of discussion, What are the five major published biographies published within the last ten years that you would require as reliable sources for another GA review? Is that a concrete limit? I note Meacham devotes 0.6% to Hemings of his 504 pages of narrative, we have 275 of 11517 words, or 2.4%. That is four times in excess for the GA review by the “major biography” test. Am I getting the point? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I never suggested "purging all references outside of the major biographers"! I said we should use them as a guide to weight.

How did you come up with 0.6% of Meacham's 504 pages being devoted to Hemings? That would mean 3 pages. The index shows Sally herself is mentioned much more than that, and the whole issue even more. Of course the passages don't always *fill* the page. Still, it seems a lot more than 6%. And there are many more pages about her ancestors and descendants and the whole Tom/Sally issue. This article also has more than 275 words about Hemings. I don't understand your counts.

I'm not suggesting any 5 major published biographies,and certainly no concrete limits. YoPienso (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean to take you seriously. The basis of your objection to my proposal is that the reliable source I use is not a “major biography”. I ask what you mean, and you can give no concrete examples of “major biography”, therefore the phrase has no actionable meaning as you use it here. Then you say reliable sources not “major biography” are allowable. I have not missed your point, you have not established a point yet — only the rhetorical flourish “major biography”, No-just-because-you-say-so.

That’s it on the Sally Hemings affair in Meacham, a sentence or two outside the major discussion over three pages, references to her family not concerned with the affair, but as examples of slaves in artisan and managerial positions on a working plantation by an enlightened master aware of human potential in those held in slavery.

Reading figures takes some practice, that’s "six-tenths of a percent” (0.6%). Each line in my browser counts about 25 words, the Jefferson-Hemings controversy takes 11-12 lines. If there are more than 275, say 345 words here, the point is the same by the “major biographer” standard, at 3.0% there is too much on Hemings by WP:WEIGHT.

If more is allowed Hemings here than WP:WEIGHT might suggest by “major biographer” standard, then I argue by your standard, more weight should be allowed in Jefferson’s presidency on making the officer corps of a standing army safe in a republic. It is worth more than one sentence. Maybe half of that given over to an informal domestic arrangement after marriage? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This word counting is not suppose to be measuring science - at any rate, WP:NOR actually recommends looking to tertiary sources in matters of due weight, because we are writing a tertiary article - 400 pages is not what we a writing. Also, we are writing a whole life biography, so yes the point about looking to whole life bios (tertiary and secondary) is what makes sense for this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I take your post to be support for the McDonald reliable references (I did not understand an edited collection of essays to be "tertiary" before) and that word counting West Point references in the "whole life bios" is not a reason for excluding my proposed edit on account of WP:WEIGHT. That's three rationales for, one against the proposal. My objection to primary sources remains, unless they are used "with great care", and not for neo-Confederate propaganda. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I said nothing about McDonald (which is not a tertiary source), but if you wish me to comment on that, your use in the above draft seems to make Jefferson's removal of people because of differences in political opinion, into extended hagiography. Then too, West Point, in your draft, appears but an excuse to pivot to talking something else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I haven't replied to you because I can't follow your gist.

• I copied your 0.6% correctly in my edit summary and the first time in my comment. Accidentally omitted the decimal point the second time. In any case, 0.6% of 504 is 3 pages. (504 x 0.006 = 3.024) We see much more than 3 pp. about Hemings in Meacham's book.
• It wasn't clear to me which book you referred to as "the reliable source I use"; your reply to Alanscottwalker indicates it's McDonald. That's a RS but not a general bio of TJ.
• I can list 5 major biographies but see no reason to; you're smart enough to know what a major general biography is. Since you want to add something new without consensus, you're the one who should cite 5 major biographers who give weight to West Point in a general bio of TJ. Example: we wouldn't use Gordon-Reed to determine weight wrt Hemings because she wrote with a special focus on Hemings. Her books are not general bios.
• I have no idea why you proposed I cite 5 authors and then asked if that would be a concrete limit for me. ???? I was simply saying a specialized biography that deals exclusively with TJ and West Point is not a guide to weight to give to West Point in this tertiary general biography. YoPienso (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• ASW points out WP policy directs us to look to tertiary sources in evaluating due weight. The Encyclopedia Britannica article on TJ says nothing about West Point. YoPienso (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The gist of the proposed passage is that West Point is but a part of presidential policy worth noting. WP is not to mirror other encyclopedias, but it is to make use of reliable secondary sources in the main. Describing how Jefferson makes an army’s officer corps representative of the country and so subservient to the nation and its peaceable transitions of power by popular election is laudable for a democratic republic, but not “hagiography”. West Point is a part of that Jefferson Administration strategy, along with others mentioned in the general second paragraph of the “Presidency" section. It is true that the proposed passage is not only about the USMA as an academy, as that would be too narrow for inclusion in this article, which the proposal is not.

The gist of my answer to the objection is clearly stated, we have 4-6 times on the Sally Hemings affair as Meacham, -- the other index citations on her going to school with Jefferson’s daughter in Paris and Sally's sons careers as artisans and managers cannot be counted as addressing the affair. I make a proposal well sourced and less than half the word count of what the article spends on an informal domestic arrangement. It narrates the wider Jefferson administration policy which West Point was but a part. Jefferson did not object to differences of opinion, he objected to cabals of career officials within the federal government vocally opposing the administration of a constitutionally elected administration. In the Age of Napoleon perverting the French republic, it was not a trivial policy concern for Jefferson's administration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Your original research is interesting and, AFAIK, factual. It just doesn't belong in this article.

If your comments were more concise I could understand them better.

Without suggesting we "mirror" the Ency. Brit., ASW refers to:

Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight ...

More generally,

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

YoPienso (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

W.P.editbreak

• Once again, there is no policy that says we must use Jefferson biographies to source any topic. TVH, I would just skip all this fuzzy talk and foot dragging about "too may details", McDonald being "right of mainstream" ... (With the many 100's of publications for Jefferson how was this spurious assertion ever arrived at? McDonald is used as a source almost exclusively by the TJF-West Point article) These are all highly opinionated assertions. These long and fuzzy interpretations of policy have gone on long enough. We all know what the policies are -- we obviously differ as to 'how many' and 'which' details to include .. a wide grey area that no editor should try to carve in stone to suit her particular liking. Such dialog is overwhelming the talk page and very likely is scaring away newcomers to the discussion, such that it is. Again, West Point is covered by more than enough RS's for us not to be bothered with any more of this fuzzy-opinionated talk any more than we have to. Coverage/weight given to West Point should at least run par with University of Virginia and Reconciliation with Adams. TVH is doing a great job of incorporating Jefferson's thinking into terms of science, political philosophy and how he employed these ideas to help the country survive and prosper. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• The Thomas Jefferson Foundation exemplifies the importance and significance of Jefferson's West Point:

In the War of 1812, the enemy British did not capture any works constructed by a graduate of West Point, and perhaps, as historian Henry Adams suggested, “had an engineer been employed at Washington ... the city would have been easily saved.” Jefferson’s military academy, Adams wrote, had “doubled the capacity of the new little American army for resistance, and introduced a new and scientific character into American life.” Jefferson himself said that he '“ever considered that establishment as of major importance to our country, and in whatever I could do for it, I viewed myself as performing a duty.” (Emphasis added)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In summary.

• The proposed discussion of Jefferson’s administration policy gaining civilian control of the Army in the face its public opposition includes establishing West Point. Objections observe this is about a narrow interest in the USMA, which would belong in History of the United States Military Academy. No, it is about Jefferson’s administration in the Napoleonic Era, so it belongs in Thomas Jefferson. Objections suppose the passage is about “something else” than the academy alone. Yes, that is why it belongs in the "Jefferson's administration" section. Objectors cannot have it both ways.

• The proposal is supported by McDonald, a reliable source published by the University of Virginia Press. Objections imply it is not a reliable scholarly publisher, that is mistaken. Objections suppose referencing reliable sources is wp:original research, that policy is not applicable here with citations to reliable sources in McDonald.

• The objection is made that the Wikipedia biography of Jefferson does not adequately mirror that in the Encyclopedia Britannica. But no proposal is made to excise material elsewhere in the existing article which is not included there, except as a rationale to singularly oppose this proposal. The objection is spurious, Hemings is not in the EncBrit introduction which objectors favor. WP does not unthinkingly mirror other encyclopedias.

• Objections suppose the reference is not adequate due to its failure to be a whole-life biography, then the objection is withdrawn when the principle is applied elsewhere in the article to other passages. In summary, there are no standing objections. Agree with Gwillhickers, as there appear to be no substantial objections, it may be time for a poll. Are there any further objections? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What? The Britannica biography, written by presidential biographer Joseph J. Ellis does talk about Jefferson's "dismantling" of "the Army and the Navy". The Center for the Study of the Presidency biography (ed.Peter Onuf) discusses Jefferson cutting the Army down, and Jefferson's desire to make the Navy a token force. [2]. The US National Park service mentions West Point.[3] What these tertiary sources don't do is have such a long-winded, convoluted POV hagiography of Jefferson as your draft does. It is not a matter of mirroring, it is a matter of writing mainstream summary tertiary information well. So, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, including SUMMARY, and NOR, and ONUS this draft needs to be cut down, it needs to not state opinions as fact, it needs to move some of its points to the presidency article, where they can be discussed in depth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If the Britannica biography mentions “dismantling” of the Army bureaucracy opposing Jefferson's administration, and providing for a loyal officer corps through West Point, we should note it also by your reasoning. So there can be no objection on grounds that the subject is not in tertiary accounts, as the substance of the proposal is reported by your own admission. There is no reasoned objection on this point, only a non sequitur.

The passage is concise in four sentences, addressing political and constitutional context, short term policy, long term policy and results. It is half the longwinded celebration of Jefferson's personal affair with Hemings, for instance. There is no POV hagiography or original research in the responsible representation of Crackel, Mayer and Watson in McDonald as sourced. No specific exaggeration in relation to the passages is suggested because there is none to be found based on material found on pages 100, 55 and 155 at [4]. There are only unspecified ad hominem attacks, and so there remain no substantial objections to the proposal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If the Britannica . . . what? There is no need to imagine the text of the Britannica article. Read it, as you have been given the cite. It does not say that. As for the rest, my criticism of a proposed text is not ad hominem. If we cannot criticize the proposal, than there is no point in the proposal being raised it here, at all. Why you discuss Hemings is odd, or beside the point, as all three of the tertiary sources discuss it similarly to the way this Wikipedia article does. My recommendation stands: "in accordance with Wikipedia policy, including SUMMARY, and NOR, and ONUS this draft needs to be cut down, it needs to not state opinions as fact, it needs to move some of its points to the presidency article, where they can be discussed in depth." Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC) (As an aside, according to this reading level calculator[5], even stripped of the footnote mark-up, so you just have the straight text, the proposals reability is off the charts (ie., the proposal is not redily understandable to a general audiance); perhaps, that will help you see my criticsm as to length, density, and convolutedness is not ad hominem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)).

"The Britannica biography, … does talk about Jefferson's dismantling of the Army and the Navy". In the 9:07am Alanscottwalker post, then it does not in the 1:21pm post, What? The site is not accessible without subscription.The WP article is not now written at an eighth grade level, and there is no WP policy to write at an eighth grade level in any event. The linked reading level site is inoperable. "All three tertiary sources" do not conform with whole life biographies, once held out to be a standard for WP:WEIGHT here. To defend the Hemings over-writing, the whole life biography standard was abandoned by those objecting to this proposal. I merely point out the proposal deals with a substantial issue for those such as Jefferson opposed to Army oppression of civilian population, who nevertheless understood the need for a professional army corps. It is about half of the Hemings section, a relatively minor episode in Jefferson's private life which cannot be reliable sourced as having any impact on his public character or career; it is merely an aside of titillating personal artifact.

What is the thesis or point of view that supposes Jefferson was not faced with a difficult and significant problem of loyalty in the Army officer corps in the midst of the Napoleonic Era subverting a republic? If it is not merely idiosyncratic on your part, there must be a reliable source which says it was minimal or nonexistent, otherwise you simply make another unsourced ad hominem attack that the proposal is original research on my part while I paraphrase three reliable sources published at a University Press.

There are no editor opinions found in the proposal, each sentence is referenced by reliable sources. To assert otherwise is an unnecessary ad hominem attack, unnecessary since each author referenced was read on line and is available to any editor. Your recommendations are unsubstantiated by any evidence that is not inconsistent or self-contradictory over the course of the discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing this further than, if you take criticism of writing as ad hominem. If you can't see that the proposal presents opinion as fact, than that's just too bad (read it again). All three tertiary sources do conform to whole life biographies, so that is just incorrect. As you are entirely unwilling to simplify your proposal or do any of the other things requested, than I oppose the proposal. (Eighth grade? Your proposal was past graduate school - the website is not inoperable for me, but, at any rate, I am certain you can find another that works for you.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I will try again to copy edit the passage to meet any critique of style or substance and of course I will be happy to see what your counter proposal looks like. That is a part of the collaborative process. But again, you make no critique, you merely label the proposal "original research" by impeaching my integrity. The passage is rigorously paraphrased from reliable sources in every respect. You can point to no segment in the passage that is "opinion", you just make another blanket ad hominem attack. There is no point in your posting further in the discussion if you have nothing substantive to say. Repeated ad hominem attack is disruptive to the Talk page. Of course you have the right to unsubstantiated opposition, no one is questioning that. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have said the proposal presents opinion as fact and it does, whether you personally agree with those opinions is immaterial to the critique - although, since you take it personally you must, and thus it is your loss of perspective that is disruptive by falsely claiming personal attack. NOR is where the Pedia places the concept of judging WEIGHT with tertiary sources, and BLPLAPSAS is in NPOV, both of which have been raised and explained to you by reference to reliable sources, and in critique of the proposal. Per the VERIFIABILITY policy, it is elementary that we do not put words in an article just because a source exists - so your repeatedly saying a source exists, does not address the critiques given - over-length, too much density, and convolutedness are all there in the proposal and have all been substantiated by reference to policy, and sources. Alanscottwalker - 12:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please specify which point[s] you find to be opinion represented as fact. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire draft is written as argument - whereas our job is exposition. But most clearly the someone's opinion written as fact are in the third, forth, and sixth sentences in the draft #2 below. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't care for the draft because it is difficult to slog through and, imo, way too detailed for this article. But I don't find TVH representing opinion as fact. I've checked out the refs, and they show TVH has faithfully represented Crackel's and Mayer's research.

Refs: open contempt; "Republicanize", pp. 18, 47, 66, etc.; “contextualist” and enumerated powers, pp. 55-71. I can see only snippets, but it's evident TVH's text is reliably sourced.

Look up the page; TVH pasted in quotes from Crackel and Mayer on Dec. 17.

I find specific comments are more helpful than general ones. I.e., it would be more helpful if you pointed out specifically what you object to rather than make a general criticism like it's opinion instead of fact or it's found in sentences 3, 4, and 6. And here I see I miscounted the sentences, but I'm not spending more time on this. YoPienso (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't count them wrong; you did, and changed them when I wasn't looking. Anyway, if you comment again, please tell us specifically what opinions you believe TVH has presented as facts. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What? The first link you sent me to says over and over again it's Crackle's argument (ie, opinion). But in the draft it is not identified as anyone's argument, it is stated as fact. Opinions can be sourced, so saying it's evident that it is sourced, is beside the point. What they should not be is misrepresented as fact. At any rate, we agree that the paragraph is not good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Crackle is a well-known scholar who spent years on research which has been very well received by other scholars. He's the standard RS on the topic and calling his analysis "opinion" is false -- it sounds like just another Wiki editor who has instant opinions. Rjensen (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No. It is his argument, that is why if we use his work we have to say it is his argument. That is the way one respects Crackle. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that clears up my question. It seemed you were saying TVH was giving his own opinion as fact. Modern historians always make arguments and state their fact-based opinions; they cannot begin a book without stating their argument. The ones well-received by their peers gain the consensus of the academy. We can't dismiss TVH's citations on that basis. We can't dismiss them at all. We can say we don't see his draft belongs in this article and that we find it opaque. YoPienso (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Dismissing the source? That's not what I have been doing. I have been and am criticizing the misappropriation and misrepresentation in the draft. We can certainly detail, where appropriate, scholars arguments and give them the credit for it, but what we cannot do is claim they are ours, nor that they are not arguments when they are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: I observe your last post as another ad hominem attack, disruptive of the page. You may need to take a voluntary break. You again attack saying I “misrepresented" Crackel, Mayer and Watson in the cited references, that I have “claimed” them as my own, and that I have supposed that their published accounts by the University of Virginia Press have not been peer reviewed. You again demonstrate personal vitriol overcoming any judgment in the field that you may otherwise possess. I note you charge me with not rewriting the passage, then ignore the rewrites and charge me again with not rewriting the passage, posting above it out of sequence to violate WP Talk page procedure for your purposes. Thus a simple unsubstantiated assertion becomes another contrived personal attack. What is the grade level of Draft #3? It is not "off the charts". Try taking out the citations.

You have demonstrated elsewhere this week that you do not understand the historical context of this period, particularly the role of the loyal opposition in the British Parliamentary system, and you fail to understand the characters of the time, charging them with a “simpering honor” which was "no honor at all", whether as conservatives, moderates or radicals as they approached and changed towards the issue of independence. History should be written as contingency in a balanced way fairly representing all actors without a blanket contempt of their characters.

NEVERTHELESS, I apologize for offending your POV. It seems the sticking point is the last sentence, what you call the “hagiography” of reporting West Point alumni were nationalists on the frontier 1802-1833, whether in military service or as civilian leaders. But I did not misrepresent Watson here, I have not claimed the authorship as my own. And you again unthinkingly deny the peer review of scholarship of a UVA Press publication, then disingenuously deny that you have done so. Simply because you may unthinkingly oppose military men with a sense of 19th century honor does not mean accounts of their nationalist activity during Jefferson's administration and 1802-1833 must never see the light of day in a section on his presidency. But as I say, I do not mean to push you over the edge of commons sense and civility. If I cut the last sentence, will the passage be acceptable? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft #3.

In 1802, the President and Congress established the United States Military Academy at West Point.[116] During the election campaign and at the beginning of his administration, Jefferson faced open contempt by many officers and appointed officials in the Army establishment. The constitutionally elected president undertook to “Republicanize” the Army to ensure its loyalty to future elected administrations. The military academy was central to his long term purpose consistent with his devotion to education. But Jefferson also immediately replaced Federalists in government, eliminated offices by legislation and insisted that new appointments went to the Republican faithful.<Crackel, Theodore J., in McDonald, Robert ed. 2004 p.100> This was consistent with Jefferson’s mature “contextualist” interpretation of the Constitution in which he allowed broad interpretation for the federal government in nationalistic spheres but still insisted on strictly enumerated powers when they were shared with the states.<Mayer, David N. in McDonald, ed. 2004 p.55> Subsequently from 1802-1833, West Point alumni in uniform and as civilian leaders furnished nationalist administrative and executive leadership in the frontier territories.<Watson, Samuel J. in McDonald, Robert ed. 2004 p.155>

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

My criticism of your writing is not personal attack. So, stop disrupting this page with your false claims of personal attack. Your new paragraph suffers the same as your earlier from not attributing ideas in the text (For example, republicanize in your text appears to come from this sentence "In the opinion of Crackel, Jefferson was out to republicanize the Army", that source sentence, if nothing else, tells you need to attribute in the text. Contexualist appears to come from a long sentence which contains the phrase "best be described as contextulist", it is written as a thought of a scholar, not as a fact). The contextulist discussion in the source is also a good example for showing your draft is too dense and convoluted. The source contrasts different types of interpretation, "strict", "loose" and "contextualist" - the explication needed to understand those is much larger than this summary article can bear. And your use of "This", at the beginning of your draft contextualist sentence, makes no sense: what you have written is, in effect, 'Jefferson fired people because he is a contextualist'. So, again I recommend in accordance with Wikipedia policy, the draft should be cut down, it should not state opinions as fact, it should move some of its points to the presidency article, where they can be discussed in depth.

Your claim about UVa peer review is false, I made no such accusation. Your entire second paragraph is mistaken, I did not impugn the founders generations' integrity - although you oddly impugned modern scholars and, yes, I have a good grasp of the time period.

Your third paragraph makes no sense. I do not have a POV about the idea that future Army administrators came from West Point. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: You again show your failure to grasp the context of the time period when you conflate active duty military officers on the frontier and USMA academy alumni in territorial leadership positions with “future Army administrators came from West Point”. You misrepresent me again, that is not what I wrote. I doubt this misstatement of the passage is perfidy, I suppose it mere carelessness in unthinking opposition, as you have no advanced no substantial reasons for opposition, but persist in accusing me of original research when I have faithfully reported reliable sources with properly referenced citations.

You failed to properly read the citation on page 100 which is a positive declarative assertion on the part of Crackle. Instead you have set up a straw man supposing my proposed passage “appears to come from” another page, instead of taking me at my word to read page 100, another unfounded personal attack by misdirection. I'm not "attributing ideas in the text". At [6] the chapters in the Table of Contents (scroll down) are linked alongside each article's page number, you can see the Crackle article beginning on page 99. On page 66, Mayer notes that Crackle “persuasively” argues on the basis of evidentiary factual scholarship, "the military academy provided an opportunity to ‘republicanize' the army under the command of the Republican administrations", -- a paraphrase of the Crackle section I wrote as "The constitutionally elected president undertook to “Republicanize” the Army to ensure its loyalty to future elected administrations.” I am paraphrasing Crackle, not Mayer’s opinion on Crackle. Pray, just for the literary exercise of it, in a spirit of collaboration, provide a concise example of your own composition covering the same material --- three paragraphs from page 100 -- so that I might learn from your example.

The paraphrase as now written is simpler than the original proposal, and no elaborate groundwork of comparative intellectual history is required for understanding the passage such as you suppose in a reductio ad absurdum. Jefferson believed that "This" "republicanizing" the Army on several fronts at the same time was justified in the Constitution, including creation of the USMA by Congressional appointment, not national appointments by scholarly merit. “Contextualist” interpretation of the Constitution is adequately explained in the proposed passage as, "broad interpretation for the federal government in nationalistic spheres but still insisting on strictly enumerated powers when they were shared with the states.” Jefferson acted in his presidential administration as a nationalist at the Louisiana Purchase, Embargo Act and establishing the USMA during his administration. That is not OR on my part, that is faithful reporting of scholarship published by the UVA Press.

You persist in disputing the scholarship in a UVA Press publication, supposing that Wikipedia "should not state opinions as fact", then saying you don’t dispute the scholarship of Crackle, which you in turn suppose is mere third-party opinion on the part of Mayer. Such self-contradiction is not bad intent, --- making distinctions between historical narrative and historiographic commentary may require some graduate level training in history --- unless you persist in it after your mistake is pointed out to you with reliable sources, internet links, and clear instructions for free access to the cited passage online without a subscription. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Your first paragraph appears to be too much odd bluster, except to note your long-winded draft sentence can be said much more easily, and as fact: "West Point alumni later served on the frontier."

Your second and third paragraphs are unresponsive, since the source does say, "In the opinion of Crackel, Jefferson was out to republicanize the Army" - it should be obvious the draft needs to explicitly attribute Crakel with what is his, not just because that is what is faithful to the source but also because it is the right thing to do ( eg. 'Historian Crackle writes', 'Crakel argues,' 'Crakel says.'). You then go on to note Crakel's argument is persuasive to Meyer, but in the draft you do not even identify it as Crakel's argument. Not just Crakel but the other historians deserve the same consideration.

Your forth paragraph is plainly wrong. The UvA source says, "In the opinion of Crackel, Jefferson was out to republicanize the Army"; the UvA source says, "best be described as contextulist", written as the thought of a scholar and not as fact. That's not me disputing scholarship, that is faithfully following their scholarship, wanting to give them the credit they deserve for their ideas, and wanting to inform the reader of whose argument we are relaying. Moreover, it remains the multiple differences of Constitional theory are too complex for this summary article. (As for the "This" point, the only thing I can do there is ask you to read it again with fresh eyes).

Then too, your draft does not even state plain facts, like the Army was reduced in size. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

One more observation from the source on page 46: "Jefferson's motives in 1801 remain cloudy", but the draft does not even hint at that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

“West Point alumni later served on the frontier.” loses the distinction which Federalists supposed impossible, the Republican USMA alumni were nationalists, too 1803-1833. This goes back to your inability to understand the period “loyal opposition” in Parliament and then in an Army officer corps, which meant for them, silence on public policy except in private expression; alumni were nationalists all the same.

The draft incorporates plain facts, such as “the Army was reduced in size” by stating Jefferson “eliminated offices by legislation” which economically refers to both military and civilian posts.

You confound “source” as the publication of multiple authors and one author for “cloudy", and “source” as Crackel’s scholarship as referenced “republicanize”. Just more misstatement and misdirection. All editors in a collection of essays do not have to agree, scholars may disagree. In any case the antecedent of "motives" is not apparent in the snippet. You apparently refuse to read the article in whole paragraphs surrounding page 100 for context. This is more historiographic confusion which your training should rescue you from. I site Crackel faithfully. You do not sound like yourself. Take a break, drop the discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No, incorrect on all points. Disagreement in scholarship is be be noted - disagreement is healthy, but as we are not making progress here - I will just refer you to my previous request. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Another source for West Point

• @TheVirginiaHistorian: Here is yet another RS for Jefferson and West Point.

Duty, Honor, Country: A History of West Point, Stephen E. Ambrose, 1966 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• We should also mention that it was Jefferson who appointed Sylvanus Thayer as superintendent of West Point and that he was also an advocate of engineering education, which is no doubt why Jefferson appointed him. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's more for the case that West Point shouldn't be mentioned in this article.

• "As for West Point, the Academy became in time 'like a foundling, barely existing among the mountains, and nurtured at a distance out of sight and almost unknown to its legitimate parents.'" Langston, p. 137.
• "Jefferson sees [West Point-trained engineers'] chief mission as involvement in civil works such as flood control. Indeed, Jefferson calls West Point a "peace academy." Tucker, p. 440. YoPienso (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

British subject--a proposal

I did not remember HoppyH inserted "and was a British subject at birth" two weeks ago, where it stood until I removed it yesterday.
Upon reflection, I offer a new proposal:

Thomas Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743 (April 2, 1743 OS), at the family home in Shadwell in the Colony of Virginia, the third of ten children. He was of English and possibly Welsh descent and was born a British subject. His father, Peter Jefferson, was a planter and surveyor who died when Jefferson was fourteen; his mother was Jane Randolph. In 1745, the Jeffersons moved to Tuckahoe Plantation upon the death of a friend of Peter's who had named him guardian of his children. They returned to Shadwell in 1752, where Peter died in 1757; his estate was divided between his two sons, young Thomas and Randolph. Thomas inherited approximately 5,000 acres (2,000 ha; 7.8 sq mi) of land, including Monticello, and between 20 and 40 slaves, assuming full authority over his property at age 21.

The paragraph needs a rewrite anyway. But my main thought is that although several of us think it's beyond obvious that TJ was born a British subject, it seems to be news for a couple of editors. Those of us who take it as a given may fail to realize that many readers may not be able to do 2 + 2 = 4. What is obvious to some of us is not necessarily obvious to everyone. If adults who have been working on this article for several years didn't realize it, maybe general readers won't realize it either. YoPienso (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz was also born a British subject - anyone want to add that to his article? TFD (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

He was born a dual Canadian-American citizen, which I found out by reading his BLP. YoPienso (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

His former Canadian citizenship is relevant because of questions about whether he was a natural born U.S. citizen and because he renounced Canadian citizenship. But there is no mention in the article that he was born a British subject. Do you think we should add it in? TFD (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he was born a British subject; I think he was born a Canadian-American citizen and a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. So no, we shouldn't add it. (I could be wrong--this issue is complex.)

While Cruz's citizenship status is important to his BLP, TJ's isn't to his bio. The only reason I suggest adding TJ's birth status is as a compromise, which collaborative editing demands. Two facts guided me to this suggestion:

• The phrase stood in the article for 2 weeks until I unilaterally removed it. That showed tacit consensus.
• The fact that some WP editors who have immersed themselves in TJ history did not realize he was born a British subject indicates many readers might not, either.

This isn't a crucial issue; it amounts to some 7 words in a long article. You might notice my proposal eliminates more than seven other words, which makes a net loss in word count. My word processor counts 222 in my proposed text and 241 as it stand now. YoPienso (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Cruz was born a British subject for exactly the same reason Jefferson was - he was born in territory subject to the Crown. Canada stopped referring to Canadian citizens as "British subjects" in 1977, and the UK changed its law in 1981. Until 1977 Canadian passports said "A Canadian citizen is a British subject." If Cruz had decided to seek political office in the UK, then his British nationality status (which is now called "Commonwealth citizen") would have been relevant to his article. Instead it is just trivia. TFD (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that the 1947 law changed British subjects to Canadian citizens, but no matter: I have been insisting TJ's British subjecthood is trivial to this bio. I'm simply looking for a compromise so we can move forward. YoPienso (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the two types of nationality continued to exist, but the rights of British subjects were gradually removed. Note too that UK and Canadian law are separate - UK citizenship was not created until 1948. Still, Canadians living in the UK retain the right to vote, sit on juries and hold office there. TFD (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm annoyed at nasty wisecracks like " may fail to realize that many readers may not be able to do 2 + 2 = 4." Please avoid them--especially when the answer is not at all obvious --eg did Jefferson have all the rights of a British subjevt?? Did his slaves?? Rjensen (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've stricken that and reworded the idea. You're making the issue more complicated than it is, though--TJ's rights and his slaves' rights aren't in this picture. It's a simple matter that he wasn't an American citizen at birth because the USA did not yet exist. All colonists of TJ's station were British subjects. The question of their rights led to the Revolution and is not part of this discussion. YoPienso (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm more or less neutral, but I will make a recommendation. I get that his being born a British colonial is probably the greatest factor in his life and his lifetime, on the other hand, I see the point is already made reasonably clear in the article, so because there is so much contention (see ONUS), I go with the leave it out, and this course's virtue is greater brevity too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

To this day, the officer corps of the British Army take an oath of allegiance to the Crown and its successors, as do Members of Parliament, and in that day, members of the Virginia House of Burgesses such as Jefferson. Jefferson's breaking with the Crown is a big deal for those who value oaths and personal honor, incomprehensible as a dilemma, unimaginable as an issue, to those of modern day fashion who have none and cannot conceive of it in others. Support Yopienso's draft. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not as big a deal, as holding that the King of England serves at the sufferance of the people, not the other way round, as the key document discussed in this article, the Declaration, says. False and simpering honor is no honor at all to anyone of any sensibility. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Your failure to grasp this time period leads you to deprecate the honor of men who were patriots but changeable, as they did not hold to your ideological straight-jacket formulation of history. “holding that the King of England serves at the sufferance of the people” is solid English Whig doctrine of the loyal opposition of Jefferson's English contemporaries, something you seem unacquainted with. History is contingent on an interplay of people and events, not a one-track monotone of inevitability.

At the First Continental Congress, the Virginia House of Burgesses sent conservatives Peyton Randolph, Edmund Pendleton and Benjamin Harrison, moderates George Washington and Richard Bland, and radicals Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry (Heinemann 2007, p. 113). There are distinctions to be made without denigrating any of their characters as holding a “false and simpering honor", nor their rationales nor their evolution as events played out relative to their oath of allegiance to the Crown, --- however universal denigration may be fashionable among “modern historians”. What you advance is just bad historiography without awareness of historical context or empathy for the characters at play. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I grasp the time period, which is why I wrote: "I get that his being born a British colonial is probably the greatest factor in his life and his lifetime . . ." But your perverse denigration of "modern historians", will lead no one to believe you have any grasp on historiography relevant to writing a modern general interest encyclopedia. Evidently, you attack them as being without "honor", which is as absurd and useless as your other claims about honor, and as irrelevant as your clear failure regarding time period about oaths - baby Jeferson took no oath. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Jefferson was I believe the first born male in the Jefferson family...Remember in Jefferson's times females were sadly not equal to males. Jefferson's father Thomas made Jefferson into an aristocrat at age five: "breaching adulthood" as it was known. More needs to be done. We have to set the proper context. Does anyone really believe that Jefferson was not a British subject at birth. The Revolutionary War did not start in 1743 but rather 1775 when Jefferson was around 32 years old. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Also Jeffereson was a British subject for 33 years. That is signifigant additional context. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The phrasing implies there was something special about Jefferson's nationality, when in fact it was the same as anyone else. It we are going to mention anything, I would say something like that as with all citizens of Virginia, he had British nationality. TFD (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is important just to refer to Jefferson as being a British subject. The Indians were not British subjects, nor possibly Jefferson's family's slaves. More explanation is needed to give Viriginia somewhat special treatment. Adams and Jefferson came from completely different backgrounds. Washington and Jefferson the same. Jefferson really did not have much of a childhood by today's standards. He emulated British aristrocracy. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Indians in the 13 colonies were not British subjects but they were in Canada under the Quebec Act 1774 and today retain the right to live in the U.S. Jefferson's slaves were British subjects provided they were born in British territory under the jurisdiction of the Crown, although as slaves they had no rights. Adams, Jefferson and Washington were all British subjects. None of them emulated British aristocracy. They were considered gentlemen and the U.S. retains some of the formality (the president's wife for example is called the "First Lady".) Whether or not any of this is noteworthy, it belongs in an article about British nationality rather than in each and every article about Americans born in the 18th century. TFD (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Support Jefferson made great deal about the rights of British subjects. He came to fame in 1774 on the basis of a pamphlet A Summary View of the Rights of British America that declared: "Not only the principles of common sense, but the common feelings of human nature, must be surrendered up before his majesty's subjects here can be persuaded to believe that they hold their political existence at the will of a British parliament." … It was this rhetoric that caused his colleagues to have Jefferson write the Declaration of Independence. As mentioned before, the British interpretation of their right to impress (seize) anyone born in the American colonies was a major factor in Jeffersonian diplomacy and a major cause of the war of 1812. Rjensen (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No one's commenting on my re-write except for the British subject part. I'm going to replace the current paragraph with mine for style; other editors will let the British subject line stand, delete it, or expand it.

Please note that TFD, ASW, Coemgenus and I see eye-to-eye. TVH and Rjensen support my re-write, but on the basic of mentioning TJ was a British subject. Like TFD, I believe this is extraneous, self-evident trivia, but I'm willing to include an unnecessary tidbit along with a general improvement. YoPienso (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

OK by me. Rjensen (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you; done. I hope the paragraph stands. The troublesome line is "He was of English and possibly Welsh descent and was born a British subject." Some may wish to shorten it to "He was of English and possibly Welsh descent"; others may wish to expand it to "He was of English and possibly Welsh descent and, like other colonists, was born a British subject." YoPienso (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

better keep it. It's not true that all the other colonists were born British subjects--some were born in Germany for example. The "possibly Welsh" bit does not belong in the lede. Rjensen (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, Novaglus made similar arguments. But notice Jefferson did not call himself a British subject, but a subject of the King in America (an "American subject"). He rejects the authority of the British parliament and presumably the privy council. Yet the common understanding of British subjects is that they owe allegiance to the King-in-Parliament and in-Council and that colonial administrations are subordinate municipalities. Parliament continued to legislate for Canada, Australia and New Zealand until the 1980s. Does Jefferson say he has the same nationality as people in England or (and he uses the example of Saxons coming to Britain) a different nationality albeit with the same king? Blackstone said that when Englishmen settled in terra nullius they remained subject to parliament. But Jefferson (and Adams) reject that.

Certainly colonists born in Germany (except Hanover) were not British subjects but similarly aliens in the U.S today are not citizens either.

TFD (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

it is not true that "Parliament continued to legislate for Canada, Australia and New Zealand until the 1980s." Rjensen (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The last acts of the UK Parliament that affected these countries were the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1947, the Canada Act 1982 and the Australia Act 1986. Under the latter two acts, Parliament ceded its right to legislate, while NZ revoked Parliament's powers to legislate for NZ in its Constitution Act 1986. Of course Parliament had long ceded its power to legislate unilaterally. But Adams and Jefferson went further - Parliament had never held power to legislate for any settler colonies. The loss of Parliament's authority went along with a separate nationality for each country. So it is questionable whether Jefferson thought of himself as a "British" subject.

Support, per @Rjensen, TheVirginiaHistorian, and Cmguy777:. British subject is a point of context, the likes of which we add to the narrative to provide a historical backdrop. Does the British Subject idea do this by itself? Somewhat, but together, along with other points of context, it helps to form an overall picture for the reader. It's time we all started writing more at the college level, as college students in particular (very) often come to WP when they begin study on a historical topic. As writers of history it would seem to me we should be looking for ways to add context in the effort to offer a more clear picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen is correct in this manner. In 1774 Jefferson was a British subject legally...After July 4, 1776 Jefferson was an independent Virginian colonist. We are talking of Jefferson's birth not when Jefferson presumably rejected the authority of the King and Parliment in 1774. Independance did not take place until 1776 and the war ended in 1783. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Legally he was a British subject until bilateral cession of his allegiance to the King and being under the King's protection, which happened in 1783. There are many naturalized Americans today who are still nationals of their lands of birth even if they have unilaterally renounced their original citizenship. TFD (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Support, as currently referenced. Hoppyh (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The King I believe in 1783 legally recognized the Continental Congress and its laws including the Declaration of Independence passed in 1776 on July 4. It took 8 years of war for recognition. To be sure it might be good to view the original 1783 treaty. However, Jefferson, by Continental Congress law was not a British subject on July 4, 1776. As for slaves, both the British and Americans viewed slaves as "property" not subjects. Emancipated slaves set free by the British I believe became Canadian citizens or British subjects. Jefferson wanted to be compensated for his slaves set free by the British. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in the 1783 Treaty about acknowledging independence in 1776. In fact loyalists who remained in the colonies throughout the war remained British subjects under both U.S. and UK law provided they moved to British territory following the peace. Loyalist emancipated slaves remained British subjects (there were no Canadian citizens until 1947). Only parliament could naturalize aliens. While slaves were property, they also had the King's protection. As pointed out in Making Foreigners, p. 39, slaves should have been considered subjects.[7] As nationality was not based on statute, it was up to local officials how to interpret this. But it is moot - slaves owed allegiance to the Crown, so did Jefferson and aliens (while in the colonies.) TFD (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Recognized documents pertaining to citizenship

• The First Charter of Virginia; April 10, 1606 Cmguy777 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

JAMES, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. WHEREAS our loving and well-disposed Subjects, Sir Thorn as Gales, and Sir George Somers, Knights, Richard Hackluit, Clerk, Prebendary of Westminster, and Edward-Maria Wingfield, Thomas Hanharm and Ralegh Gilbert, Esqrs. William Parker, and George Popham, Gentlemen, and divers others of our loving Subjects, have been humble Suitors unto us, that We would vouchsafe unto them our Licence, to make Habitation, Plantation, and to deduce a colony of sundry of our People into that part of America commonly called VIRGINIA Cmguy777 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Transcript of Declaration of Independence (1776) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Transcript of Articles of Confederation (1777) Cmguy777 (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Article I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be, “The United States of America.” Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Transcript of Treaty of Paris (1783) Cmguy777 (talk)

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments

I put the above documents for clarification and/or references. King James founded Virginia in 1606. People in Virginia were considered "Subjects". Virginia and the rest of the colonies declared Independence in 1776. King George recognized the United States in 1783. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose from 1653–58 Virginians were Subjects of Oliver Cromwell. Apparently there was no new Charter written under Cromwell, but the Virginians disliked the Protector the most of the colonies. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No one was ever subject (in law) to Cromwell. The Virginia Charter refers to the principals of the company - they were all English subjects even before they went beyond the beyond the four seas. But no one questions whether Jefferson was a British subject, merely whether it is relevant. The PMs of the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and possibly the president of the U.S. were all born British subjects, but there is no reason to add that to their biographies. TFD (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That depends on how Protector is defined. Cromwell had Charles I beheaded. Did that end the 1606 Royal charter ? Cromwell did rule Virginia as Protector. The colonists could not have been Crown Subjects because there was no Crown. That would leave Cromwell their "Protector". The Colonists were under his authority by law or his subjects but were not Royal Subjects from 1653 to 1658. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Correction: Virignia acknowledged Charles II as King but surrendered to Parliement in 1652. That would make Parliment their leader until Cromwell ussumed the Protectorate. What powers did the Protectorate have ? Source: The English Civil Wars and Virginia Cmguy777 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The Virgina colony was not under a King or Queen from 1649 to 1659. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The Instrument of Government (1653)

That all writs, processes, commissions, patents, grants, and other things, which now run in the name and style of the keepers of the liberty of England by authority of Parliament, shall run in the name and style of the Lord Protector, from whom, for the future, shall be derived all magistracy and honours in these three nations; and have the power of pardons (except in case of murders and treason) and benefit of all forfeitures for the public use; and shall govern the said countries and dominions in all things by the advice of the council, and according to these presents and the laws. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There was an oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth (see: Engagement controversy and from 14 Sept 1654 to the Lord Protector and the Commonwealth.[8] But that was nullified during the Restoration. I do not know what effect that would have had on nationality law at the time, but it was of no relevance when Jefferson was born. TFD (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently Cromwell "inherited" the privileges of the King in 1653 and in 1657 the right to choose his own heir. Yes. This is of no relevence to Jefferson since the Crown was restored in 1660. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It shows that how nationality (and citizenship) were viewed before the U.S. revolution and very different from how they are today. We think of it as membership in a nation, rather than an allegiance to a living person. TFD (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source that seems to say nationality law was a state matter until 1789. That makes the issue more complex as Jefferson may not have been a U.S. citizen until then. TFD (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson was born in Virginia as a British subject in 1743. Naturalization concerns persons entering the U.S. Jefferson was a citizen of Virginia both as a Colony and as a State. The 1776 DOI stated the Virginia was no longer a colony but a State. That would automatically make Jefferson a citizen of the U.S. since he was born and had lived in Virginia for 33 years. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

(I do not know why you are bringing up naturalization.) Your sources say the King acknowledged the independence of each and every state, and the also states remained sovereign and independent under the Articles of Confederation. It appears that each state had its own nationality, hence no U.S. nationality. The United States had no executive or judiciary, or the ability to legislate - three branches that seem to define government today. Do you know if any of Jefferson's biographers discuss the issue? TFD (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Jefferson's opinion of Jesus

The religion section would do well to include a couple of revealing items regarding Jefferson, Jesus and religion. Below are two quotes from Jefferson regarding Jesus. The section should list at least one of these quotes -- along with the content listed below them, which points to Jefferson's leanings where religion was concerned. Jefferson also attended church on a regular basis throughout his life. These prove to be major points where Jefferson and religion are concerned, imo.

• In a letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803, Jefferson claimed "I am Christian, in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished any one to be." <Library of Congress: Jefferson's Opinion of Jesus > <Randall, 1858, p.556>
• In 1820 Jefferson wrote Jarred Sparks, a Unitarian: "The religion of Jesus is found in the Unity of God and this principle gave it triumph over the rabble of heathen gods then acknowledged." <Meacham, 2012, p.475>
• Jefferson always contributed generously to local churches. <Malone, Jefferson and his Time, p.109> <Randall, 1858, p.555>
• Records of Jefferson's church attendance are not complete, but evidence exists of his involvement with and attendance at local churches throughout his life. <T.J.F.: Jefferson's Religious Beliefs> -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the Jefferson quote to Jarred Sparks would be a good addition to the article. But I think Jefferson remains controversial because of his Bible leaving out miracles. Jefferson admires Jesus but not his disciples especially Paul. I don't believe the article needs to "prove" Jefferson was a Christian by his generosity or church attendence. Jefferson's scientific training apparently did not allow the belief in a spiritual world. Jesus to Jefferson seems to be more of a reforming philosopher then savior. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Following @Gwillhickers and Cmguy777: in search of a consensus, I added two citations to Gwhillhickers previous two and two, so the entire section would now read as follows:

Jefferson was influenced by deism,[236] although he generally referred to himself as a Christian. He abandoned "orthodox" Christianity after his review of New Testament teachings.[237] Nevertheless, in 1803 he asserted, “I am Christian, in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished any one to be." Jefferson praised the morality of Jesus and edited a compilation of his biblical teachings, omitting miraculous or supernatural references. He titled the work, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly known today as the Jefferson Bible.[238] Jefferson was a governing member of his local Episcopal Church, which he attended with his daughters.[239]

He donated to the American Bible Society, saying that the four evangelists delivered a “pure and sublime system of morality” to mankind. He thought Americans would rationally create “Apiarian” religion, extracting the best traditions of every denomination. And he contributed generously to several local denominations nearby Monticello. Acknowledging that organized religion always would be a factor in political life for good or ill, he encouraged the application of reason to questions of faith. He believed in a creator God, an afterlife and the sum of religion as loving God and neighbors. But he also controversially renounced the conventional Christian Trinity, predicting that a “genuine doctrine of only one God” would be generally adopted within a generation.

Jefferson was firmly anticlerical, writing that in "every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon."[241] In 1777, he drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The Act was ratified in 1786, making it unlawful to compel men to attend or donate money to any state sanctioned religious establishment and declaring that men "shall be free to profess ... their opinions in matters of religion."[242] He once supported banning clergy from public office but later relented.[243] Early in 1802 Jefferson reiterated his agreement with the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association, “that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God”. He interpreted the First Amendment as having built “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Jefferson's unorthodox religious beliefs became an important issue in the 1800 presidential contest. Opponents attacked him as an atheist and infidel; Wood described it as "the most damaging charge [Jefferson's] opponents ever made against him".[244] Federalists prophesied that Jefferson’s election would call down God’s vengeance on the United States, New Englanders were warned he would confiscate Bibles, the choice was between “a religious president or … Jefferson and no God.” As president, Jefferson countered the accusations by praising religion in his inaugural address and attending services at the Capitol.[244]

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the narration is well written. Concerns: "''He believed in a creator God, an afterlife and the sum of religion as loving God and neighbors.''" What in Jefferson' writings or actions support this claim ? I am not sure how giving money to Churches or attending Church with his daughters has anything to do concerning Jefferson's own religious views. Also why did Jefferson leave out miracles in his Bible ? Cmguy777 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this adds too much detail, which is best left in a separate article. There are so many aspects to Jefferson, that we cannot provide a great deal of extensive detail. Also, the suggested additions change the weight to suggest that Jefferson may have been more religious than generally believed. If there is evidence that some informed sources believe that, then we should add it. Saying that he went to church a lot implies he was religious without overtly saying so. TFD (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Also the 1800 election information is interesting and would be good in the Jefferson and religion article. But again that has more to do with the religious and/or political views of Federalists rather then Jefferson. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: Meacham’s three point summary of Jefferson’s beliefs is found on page 471. Giving money to several denominations, attending Capitol Hill services with rotating preachers, and taking his daughters to church indicate a belief in church society as beneficial to the republic generally, his “Apiarian” approach to American worship, borrowing the best from one another, as a bee collecting nectar from many flowers to digest into honey, for greater nourishment, ... Jefferson's views on religion had political consequences which need to be outlined in the same way the consequences of his views on democracy are outlined.

@The Four Deuces: His objection to “religion” was the error fostered by superstitious priesthoods leading to the death of millions by burning at the stake, torture and Protestant-Catholic religious wars for reasons of difference which could not be justified directly by Jesus teaching. The weight of modern scholarship is that Jefferson was neither irreligious nor anti-religious as his political opponents charged. His biography should not omit the fuller picture. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The already lengthy section that stood when this discussion thread was begun[9] sufficiently explains all we need to know. No one has suggested that we use the positions of 1800s attack ads, but we do not want to spin him as a proto-evangelical. TFD (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: TFD is correct...Jefferson was not Billy Graham with all due respect...he was scientifically trained philosopher who had his own original religious views outside contemporary Christianity. Going to church and giving money is not a religious view or act of Jefferson. An athiest could go to church and give money. Jefferson preaching at a church or writing a sermon, psalm, or music would be a religious act. There is no record of Jefferson doing any of those things. Other then Jesus' teachings the Bible does not seem to interest Jefferson in any way. The federalist paragraph has nothing to due with Jefferson but rather the Federalists. Didn't work either because Jefferson was elected twice to the Presidential office. There is also the issue of slavery and religion that is not discussed in the paragraph. Did Jefferson love his slaves as he loved himself? I am for putting in the article Jefferson's "Aparian" approach. I don't have an issue concerning that. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Gwillhickers point is that the passage does not yet have the length of lesser elements in the Jefferson biography given the relative weight of modern historiography. @Cmguy777: The passage does not relate the career of an evangelist such as Billy Graham. So yes, you have proved “There is no record of Jefferson doing any of these things.”, but the passage does not relate any unrecorded details which might suppose evangelical behavior, so there are no grounds for your expressed concern.

Although it is possible to imagine that some do, most atheists do not regularly attend church with their families, give to multiple denominations and underwrite Bible societies. There is still some confusion among editors here; Jefferson believed in one creator God, and professed himself a Christian, “in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished one to be.” And tolerant, eclectic, rational denominations based on the actual teachings of Jesus of Nazareth would contribute to good society in the republic.

Now are we to put Jefferson on trial, whether he was a “true” Christian by editor consensus based on slave holding? Meacham, a reliable source, says that Jefferson believed that the dictum, love God and one’s neighbor as oneself, was the summary of all good ethical teaching. Meacham does not assert that Jefferson “loved his slaves as he loved himself”, that is outside the scope of the proposed narrative. Let’s stick to reliable sources rather than conjuring tangents out of thin air to begin an unsourced witch hunt.

The point of the rewrite is to communicate a) Jefferson’s understanding of the idiosyncratic Christianity which he adhered to, b) Jefferson’s understanding of the social function of religion in a republic as a public good, and c) opponent’s use of Jefferson’s denial of a Triune God, which is judged in the literature as “the most damaging charge opponents ever made against him". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit break

@TheVirginiaHistorian: "unsourced witch hunt" There is no need to make a personal attack here. I was expressing my opinion on this subject in good faith as I am sure you are. I was using Meacham as the source. Meacham does not define who Jefferson's neighbors are. So in my opinion saying Jefferson loved his neighbors as himself opens up the unanswered question to the reader who are Jefferson's neighbors; slaves or Indians ? We can't exclude slave holding in examining Jefferson and his faith. Is Meacham attempting to make Jefferson look like an evangilitical? I will give you another example of an evangilitical George Whitefield. Did Jefferson have any opinions on the Great Awakening during the 1700's ? Why Jefferson attended Church and gave money to Bible societies at the same time denouncing the clergy is unknown. Jefferson was also a politician living in a religious society. Many Baptists and Methodists during Jefferson's times were teaching against slavery and advocating emancipation of slaves. Jefferson was not a Baptist or Methodist. This does not have to be an unending discussion going around in circles. Jefferson believed what he wanted to believe. Wikipedia does not have convince readers what Jefferson believed. Cmguy777 (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

But reliable sources do not answer who Jefferson’s neighbor is to be; you are asking a question outside their purview. It is my understanding that Jefferson attended local churches, Cove Presbyterian Church, and also Methodist and Baptist churches which had integrated congregations. Wikipedia needs only report what Jefferson believed as reliably sourced, I’m not sure how that is “convincing". Nothing is asserted in the proposed narrative that is not sourced.

BTW It is known why Jefferson attended Church, he believed religion was important in civil society. It is known why Jefferson gave money to Bible Societies, he believed that the four evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John - not Paul) delivered a “pure and sublime system of morality” to mankind. It is known that Jefferson denounced clergy because in their superstitious adherence to illogical doctrines they justified burning at the stake, torture and religious war murdering millions, with which Jefferson disagreed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I want to drop a little info into this discussion, but will post it above in the more appropriate "Separation of Church and State" section. YoPienso (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, please see "Jefferson's Opinion of Jesus": Jefferson pronounced Jesus' doctrines, though "disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers" far superior to any competing system. YoPienso (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's follow what historians say about Jefferson and not make him a prototypical 21st century evangelist. TFD (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What portion of the proposed narrative implicates Jefferson as "a prototypical 21st evangelist"? Nothing does, that's a non sequitur. The proposed narrative is sourced. Stick to the sourced discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have serious trouble with Nevertheless, in 1803 he asserted, “I am Christian, in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished any one to be - in particular with the "Nevertheless". From my reading (and listening), Jefferson thought Jesus to be a great moral teacher, comparable to Socrates, but not the son of god, or any divine being. He did not believe in any of the miracles, and found the ideas of a trinity and "fully man, fully god" to be obviously absurd. The quote above is (probably intentionally) ambiguous - it's fully consistent if by "Christian, in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished any one to be" he indicates someone who follows Jesus' moral codex, without any belief in a personal god or a magical messiah. Thus, there is no conflict between abandoning orthodox Christianity and the quote, as the "Nevertheless" would suggest. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree generally. But Jefferson's contemporaries thought there was a disjuncture at the time, as the widely adopted Nicene Creed was shared by several denominations. The "nevertheless" has to do with Jefferson persisting in calling himself a "Christian" as a "denomination of one" in the face of the overwhelming Trinitarian majorities in his time. Could "yet" or "all the same" be substituted to meet your objection? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

How about not using any connective (following both Strunk & White and the man himself - never using two words when one will do). But this may need contextualising - what about "Jefferson considered Jesus not a divine figure, but a great moral teacher, and in 1803 he asserted, “I am Christian, in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished any one to be"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I get your point. How about, "He abandoned 'orthodox' Christianity after his review of New Testament teachings.[237] Without admitting the divinity of Jesus, in 1803 he asserted, 'I am Christian, in the only sense in which [Jesus] wished any one to be.'"[1] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, not so happy. It's at best ambiguous , at worst suggesting that there is something to admit, but Jefferson just does not do so. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

West Point for mainspace narrative

Let's not overshadow the important facts with selective takes and long winded opinion about what summary style and weight is -- esp since distributing weight consistently has not been observed (not to mention the glaring gaps in the narrative) since the article was nominated for GA.

Jefferson thought a military academy was needed to supply the country with first class officers, engineers and strategists, rather than relying on other countries (outsourcing) for these. The following statements exemplifies the importance Jefferson placed on establishing a national military academy.

• Karnish, 2010, "Jefferson emphasized the nation's need for a strong system of defense, and it was under his presidency that a national military academy was established at West Point"
• Thomas Jefferson Foundation By 1802, when Jefferson established the United States Military Academy, he had fully embraced the importance of the "useful sciences," both in education and in the protection of the young nation.
• Gordon S. Wood, 2009, Although Jefferson in the 1790’s had opposed the creation of a military academy, he now favored the establishment of one at West Point as a means of educating Republican army officers …
• United States Military Academy at West Point: President Thomas Jefferson signed legislation establishing the United States Military Academy in 1802. He took this action after ensuring that those attending the Academy would be representative of a democratic society.
• Onuf, 2007: The academy thus fulfilled Jefferson’s original vision of inculcating patriotic values and disseminating advanced technical and scientific knowledge. . . .

... More overlooked items forthcoming. Lede or no lede, Jefferson's involvement and thinking regarding West Point needs to be better covered in the biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

So we have three citations in modern historiography to mention West Point in the narrative: Karnish 2010, Wood 2009, Onuf 2007. Is that not sufficient? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I recommend you first look at the essays by 9 scholars in Robert McDonald, ed. Thomas Jefferson's Military Academy: Founding West Point (U of Virginia Press, 2004 234pp. eg the argument that TJ really wanted a school for scientists/geographers/explorers not soldiers. see p 121 Under that approach it never amounted to much until Thayer after 1817 made the West Point we admire so much. Timothy Johnson in reviewing the book for VA MAG HIST says "Theodore J. Crackle provided the most plausible and thorough explanation of motivation in his 1987 book, Mr. Jefferson's Army, wherein he effectively argued that Jefferson intended to purge the army of its elitist, Federalist-leaning officer corps and replace it with qualified men committed to republican principles. In Crackle's contribution to the present study, he goes a step further by demonstrating that the military academy was only a small part of a comprehensive strategy to eliminate Federalists from positions of power and authority throughout the government, including federal marshals, attorneys, treasury agents, and postmasters." .... Johnson also notes "Jennings L. Wagoner, Jr., and Christine Coalwell McDonald assert that West Point resulted from Jefferson's interest in the advancement of science and his desire for a national university." Rjensen (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In terms of the law establishing Westpoint Jefferson wanted Congressmen to choose who would be members of the Academy. Ulysses S. Grant I believe was chosen only because there was a chance opening by one cadet who did not finish or start training and his father's political influence. I think Rjensen is correct concerning Jefferson's motivation for establishing Westpoint for scientists/geographers/explorers. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources Gwillhickers listed is a general biography of Jefferson. Onuf's psychological history comes closest, but the nuance throughout its collection of essays can't fit into this article. Onuf argues that TJ deserves more credit for founding West Point, but in an ironic sense. (Onuf's essay is also in Thomas Jefferson's Military Academy: Founding West Point, by Robert M. S. McDonald.) Please read my explanation of weight, balancing aspects, and summary style to understand the guidelines for inclusion of data in this article. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I did read it, enjoyed it, found it instructive. That's why I asked if the references cited were sufficient for our purposes. It appears they are not, but I think it is a blind spot of generally anti-military "new historians", rather than making for a balanced account of the times. I liked Pauline Maier's view of using the good research of earlier historiography to inform contemporary narrative. I note that the WP article has been purged on “The Historical Society” a group among American Historical Association dedicated to that concept which Maier helped initiate. It is out of fashion among the preponderance of modern historians, so it is excised. Of course, WP:SIGNIFICANCE -- just because it existed doesn't mean it should be remembered. I get it, current fashion is a criteria for the online encyclopedia. Out of fashion ideas need not see the light of day even if properly sourced. Okay. But I think that the same cleaver used to cut away neo-Confederate Lost Cause interpretations of Jefferson which we were able to do in a couple of instances during the GA review, should not be used to silence the voices of good historiography of the past. -- BTW I find great personal satisfaction in that the section on "Jefferson and democracy" remains in the current article. Thanks to all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the fly in your ointment (pardon the hackneyed phrase), as I am sure you are aware, is "good". Given this format, that can neither mean ILIKEIT, nor 'I agree with it.' It can only mean that modern scholarship finds it good, and we come to agreement on that by looking to modern scholarship (we have much less a chance of coming to agreement on what you or I think is good). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, and, WP is not a place to wp:right great wrongs --- such as contextual oversight in current historiographic fashion --- which can be amended by reference to earlier reputable scholarship, unimpeached by modern standards -- the "good" ones. But it is interesting to consistently apply the standards used to diminish including West Point here at Talk to the Sally Hemings section: a) not much found in Jefferson's own writing; b) monographs on the subject indicate daughter article status for such details. That aside, I am hopeful that a more collaborative approach centered around "modern scholarship" can bring all participating editors around to consensus and GA status for this article -- just to see if it can be done. :-) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian and Yopienso: Will someone show us the policy that all reliable sources must be Jefferson biographies and then explain what the existing non-biographical RS's are doing in this article? As for the recital of policy regarding Summary style, will someone show us the actual policy that says we must keep all details out of a summary? The debate is over 'which' details we place in a summary, as I've mentioned several times. There are two dedicated books for Jefferson and West Point (McDonald and Remick) not to mention an assortment of other sources already pointed out. What I see are reaching and contrarian attempts to simply block content/context which will eventually make this biography, also, read like it was authored for grade schoolers. Jefferson's West Point accomplishment was unprecedented, as it was the country's first military academy, whose precepts were fashioned after Jefferson's thinking, regarding science and education and for providing the nation with its own officers and engineers. This deserves to be well covered in terms of Jefferson's thinking and political philosophy. As @Rjensen: points out, if Jefferson wanted to purge the Army of military elitists and replace them with qualified men committed to republican principles this important bit of information should be included. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yopienso already did a great job of explaining it above. You could also read TVH's comments in this section--he seems sympathetic to your opinion on West Point, but also understands the policy and edits without rudeness or rancor. We disagree, but civilly. On the other hand, you calling the rest of us "contrarian" (which assumes bad faith) and saying that our writing is "for grade schoolers" isn't helpful. Can we lay off the personal attacks and move on with the article? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• "a great job of explaining"? The idea of adding certain details v dumping them all in a daughter article was typically glossed over, and it's a little trite to use the facade of 'summary style' as an all around excuse to gut the article of context under such a narrow and highly subjective interpretation of such policy. There is a wide grey area regarding 'which' and 'how many' details we use in a summary here. Btw, I was once referred to as a "contrarian", right in the middle of the GA review, along with your albeit veiled remarks that it was my disruptive editing that has kept the Jefferson article from reaching GA, so I'm not very moved with your stand on civility and good faith at this particular juncture -- but I do have hope certain editors will come around so we all can move on without requiring an act of congress every time an editor wants to add a well sourced point. My opinion about writing at the grade school level is a legitimate criticism given the cut and dry methodology used to write much of this article. More attention needs to be given the actual writing and inclusiveness of the narrative. The article should at least read at the pre'grad college level. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Re: The claim that "We are supposed to emphasize what the majority of mainstream historians agree on. We stick with the academic consensus." We had this debate, in length, several times before, where it was claimed that historical consensus for a Jefferson-Hemings relationship was more or less all on the same page. In reality consensus regarding Jefferson's paternity is widely varied with many notable historians in doubt. There are only a couple of sources (e.g.TJF) who make the claim of "most historians", so perhaps we should say e.g. 'The TJF claims most historians believe...' , because they don't qualify their claim, nor do they offer any sources. Issue was made that Jefferson and West Point wasn't covered very well by Jefferson biographers. Are we using that yardstick to evaluate the "most historians" claim? How many biographers have actually made the claim? One? Two? How many of them source the claim? The last time I checked, none of them do. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not work on getting the Thomas Jefferson article to Good Article status before any West Point additions? Seems like the cart is before the horse... Cmguy777 (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It might make sense to settle content disputes before moving on to another GA attempt, since instability would only fail it again. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus, Cmguy777, and Yopienso: -- I have no desire to remove the "most historians' statement simply based on the idea that hardly any of Jefferson's biographers make such a claim. Just wanted to make an important point: RS's for this article are still such even if they are not a biography on Jefferson. I just hope that all editors exercise consistency and use this same yardstick for all topics throughout the article -- including West Point, which albeit is not covered very well by most of Jefferson's biographers, but covered well enough regardless. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Cm', I did not receive your suggestion to bring the article to GA status 'before' covering West Point very well, as if was some obscure topic hardly involving Jefferson. Which is more important -- the GA award or the narrative we are giving to the readers? Your suggestion more than implies you are more concerned about the GA award than you are about the content, comprehensiveness and inclusiveness of the article. GA actually means a good article. Let's make a Good Article first and I'm sure the GA award will follow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: I gave my opinion in good faith. To get a good article to GA of FA status requires any controversial issues to either be resolved or possibly taken care of at a later time. Editors can work together compromise settle issues later, but I respectfully disagree, Jefferson deserves GA and FA status, that in my opinion is more important then inclusion of West Point in the article. Editors should be free to state their opinions and not be directed by any other editor. There was editor concensus not to include Jefferson created West Point in the lede. Please remember I supported inclusion. We got out voted. That is why I mentioned the importance of getting Jefferson to GA. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Cm', It was just a general reminder, that we should not avoid issues, or just pawn them off with just a general sentence or two, just so we can see the little GA icon at the top of the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, Jefferson and West Point are important that is why I supported mention in the lede section. I am not "pawning" the importance of West Point. In my opinion GA and FA status for Jefferson is important. Leaving out West Point in my opinion would be a compromise, but that does not reduce the value of West Point inclusion. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, it was a general statement of advice -- not aimed at your involvement only. Also, 'compromise' means that we arrive at a narrative that all involved parties can live with. Leaving out West Point entirely (of all topics!) doesn't even approach the idea of a compromise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm calling you on this one, Gwillhickers. It was NOT a general statement of advice: you addressed the paragraph to him.

Please refrain from editing until you can 1. be truthful, 2. respect consensus, and 3. employ summary style. Thanks. YoPienso (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair point, YoPienso. @Gwillhickers: will you agree to follow the guidelines on page length? If not, we're all just wasting our time. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus: I will agree to be mindful of page length guidelines, as I've always have, however, it would help if you not regard exceeding a page length guideline as something that's going to hurt the narrative, the readers, editors and WP itself, 'every time' someone wants to add a point of context. And remember there are also guidelines against deleting content simply for the sake of page length guidelines. Let's hope this is the last time we have to rehash this. We need to start giving more attention to the article we are going to give to the readers out there. It would also help if you accepted the difference between a guideline and a policy. I would like to think that the people who drafted WP's policies and guidelines were wise enough to know that WP articles vary in size considerably and that there will be times when certain topics will require more length. Hence there is no rigid policy regarding page length. For some reason you seem to be completely at odds with this idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• @Yopienso: The statement was addressed to him, and prompted by him, but the advice is directed to all. Now would you kindly stop barking orders and looking for trouble? If you have issues about a policy, take it up on the policy talk page and please stop reciting the simple policy as a means of hounding and harassment. Regarding truthfulness, it would help if you could actually point to an instance where I am clearly in violation of any guideline or policy. And while we're discussing behavior, it wasn't very professional of you to wander on to the GA nomination/Jefferson page and refer to me as a "contrarian", all the while I simply wished to add a point of context -- I was not being contrary, and if I was, so what? That's what happens on talk pages, esp during GA and FA nominations. If there is anything else you need to have cleared up, please say so, so we can continue this discussion indefinitely, as we all know our personal differences and pet peeves are much more important than improving the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I've heard this point you make before, that you think policies are rigid and guidelines are mere suggestions, but that's not accurate. At Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, it explains that policies are things that "have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow." Guidelines are "sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." So, both are things we should follow, but both allow for exceptions (admittedly, there are probably fewer exceptions to policies). So, yes, I except that there are exceptions to guidelines, but if you're calling for exceptions more often than you're following the rule, then the exception becomes the rule, and the actual rule is being ignored. See what I mean?

And thank you for the link about content removal, but what it's discussing, when you follow the link there, is deletion of content, not shifting it to another article. It says "It is sometimes necessary to move whole blocks of text from one article to another, when merging, splitting, or otherwise transferring." That's all people are asking for here -- not the deletion of sourced info that's given its proper weight, but only moving details to the subarticles to conform with summary style. There's room to grow here, but not much. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

For you West Point promoters, I just learned that Gretchen Carlson (Fox News) is airing a special behind-the-scenes tour expose' on the Academy which is scheduled for 7:00 and 9:00 PM tomorrow. Hoppyh (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

guidelines

• @Coemgenus: you've demonstrated the point I've always tried to make! Yes, as guidelines clearly says Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. -- Since Jefferson was directly involved in many definitive areas of Early American history, not to mention science, philosophy, education, slavery and more, his biography accordingly requires more space than the average article. If there was a consensus among us to allow more space, if needed, it would be much easier for all editors to spend more time in a creative aspect, writing, adding some context, solidifying the narrative, rather than looking for ways to delete content and engaging other editors constantly. Remember during the Grant FA nomination, only a couple of reviewers commented on page length guidelines, but went ahead and passed the Grant Bio regardless -- a Featured Article no less.

• As was discussed before, deletion of content, not "shifting" it, is what has almost always occurred here over the last couple of months. If content is deleted, and not shifted, it raises policy issues. It also leaves a reader wondering and asking questions when content is moved in this methodological fashion. Encyclopedias are generally written for the intelligent reader, unlike People magazine. Though encyclopedias present topics in summary form, a well written summary can easily take take up pages of text. Many encyclopedias, like World Book, Britainica, etc, often devote many pages to important topics, well written with context. Bear in mind also, an account can be several pages long, but still may not constitute a summary because some important facts and/or points of context have been left out. Summary style is not contingent on length. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing debate between ASW and TVH

I hope this debate can be settled quickly and amicably.
@TheVirginiaHistorian: Alanscottwalker isn't personally attacking you.
@Alanscottwalker: I believe you're mistaken about "argument," as I've explained earlier. The basis of modern historical writing is argument. Other historians agree with Crackel's interpretation. Onuf. Onuf. (Same essay, I think, but snippets are elusive.) Onuf's imprimatur is weighty. A lesser scholar, Langston, says the same. There is no need to identify Crackel's writing as an opinion.
But none of this is even necessary since TVH's proposed draft doesn't fit into the article. What say we drop the proposal and the discussion? YoPienso (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Support—Dropping the Discussion and Dropping the Draft Hoppyh (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Support per Hoppy, eratta below. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

clarification and discussion

(but take exception to Yopienso's argument. I won't repeat why (you have already read it), but note, even your new links to Onuf and Langston explicitly attribute to Crackel, in the text. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Several Onuf passages do not explicitly attribute to Crackel in the text. On p. 189, Onuf writes, "As Crackel as shown," thus embracing Crackel's argument as fact. Langston's footnote properly credits Crackel, but he isn't mentioned in the text. Langston asserts in his own voice, "Jefferson sought to Republicanize the army." Wagoner and McDonald support Crackel's argument on p. 120. Yarbrough, on p. 210, wrote without citing to Crackel, "For in signing the legislation that established West Point Jefferson intended to republicanize the military . . ." Thus, while Crackel deserves citation, it is not only his opinion that TJ deliberately republicanized the army and the argument is properly presented as fact, citing to Crackel, Onuf, Langston, Wagoner & McDonald, Yarbrough, and doubtless others. YoPienso (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Crakel deserves to be prominently recognized, as sources do, reread Langston, and that it is his opinion and his argument is not me saying that, those are sourced statements, from the very source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Certainly Crackel must be credited, as I said! Your statement about Langston is incoherent. Langston refers to Crackel (in laudatory terms, without naming him) as saying republicanization was TJ's deepest motivation. Langston himself doesn't go quite that far. You do understand the difference between citing to Crackel and relegating his writing to mere opinion? You aren't sounding like yourself; help you're well. Happy Holidays! YoPienso (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Happy Holidays to you too. Giving Crakel explicit credit in the text is not relegating him. Langston refers to Crakel in the text, that is what I said. Continuing Langston in reference to Crackel, "It was patronage politics, in other words, that moved Jefferson . . ." Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Drop the discussion and vote. Hoppyh (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support dropping the discussion and adopting the proposal unlike Hoppyh. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be an Oppose by TVH on dropping the proposal. Hoppyh (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Support dropping the proposal. YoPienso (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose dropping the proposal. The topic of West Point needs to covered par with the scholarship, which includes many sources. The scholarship encompasses more than just 'biographies'. Again, this important topic needs to be covered with more than a sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Pushing to include the Military Peace Establishment Act, Part 1

Talk page overwhelming I think at this point we need to start discussing the idea of compromise because the 'discussion' over the last couple of weeks has gone back and forth where accusations and not so friendly talk are now overwhelming the talk page. There needs to be a compromise. I've lost count of the collapsing boxes, i.e.inside other collapsing boxes, now on the page. I have never seen a discussion over such simple items grow to such proportions. We have alienated any newcomers to the discussion with all this long winded and highly opinionated talk. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC) You've You [collective pronoun] have also alienated me. Good-bye. YoPienso (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC) I fail to see how -- I've been away for a week where you have been quite, 'active'. Your flip response is not consistent with the unyielding talk you spread all over, and you're only demonstrating the point, Yopienso. Please lighten up a bit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Progress on Jefferson will require a commitment to the first pillar of Wikipedia - that it is an encyclopedia - and Jefferson, even as compelling and abundant with history as he is, must be edited with the restraint which an encyclopedic article entails. The article is already beyond the limits of length and depth which will engage the average reader - there is no agreement on this nor is there likely to be. Hoppyh (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC) I agree with your last copy edit deleting detail on linguistics as contributing to encyclopedic style. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC) @TheVirginiaHistorian: I restored this "detail", which was and is a general statement regarding Jefferson and his views regarding the study of linguistics: Linguistics played a significant role in how Jefferson modeled and expressed political and philosophical ideas. He believed that the study of ancient languages was essential in understanding the roots of modern language. Hope this meets with yours and everyone's approval. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Frankly, I see editors' behavior to be impeding progress on this article, which is ironic, since all of us sincerely want it to be excellent. I don't see how I'm part of the problem, but I don't see how I can help solve it, either. There is generally agreement/productive discussion among Hoppyh, AlanScottWalker, TheFourDeuces, Coemgenus, Rjensen, and myself. In the past, TheVirginiaHistorian has contributed to healthy discussion, but recently has wanted to expand the article beyond what the majority of editors think are its limits. A drive-by editor, Dcpoliticaljunkie, doesn't engage on talk. Gwillhickers typically disagrees and Cmguy777 is all over the place. So we're stymied. @Gwillhickers: In my view, you have a Donald Trump approach: blustering, blaming, insisting you're right. One recent example: And while we're discussing behavior, it wasn't very professional of you to wander on to the GA nomination/Jefferson page and refer to me as a "contrarian", all the while I simply wished to add a point of context -- I was not being contrary, and if I was, so what? 19:40, 21 December 2015 Here is one of your diatribes to the amenable and helpful Hoppyh during the GA review. Another recent example: I was disappointed at your treatment of Cmguy777 here, your subsequent disingenuousness here and here, and your lame explanation, "The statement was addressed to him, and prompted by him, but the advice is directed to all." You have dismissed the explanation of weight and summary style I provided that you so desperately need to learn. Other editors supported it. In my view, which was iterated by other editors during the GA review, your behavior is what is making progress on this article impossible. @Cmguy777: In my view, you are easily distracted from main topics and often want to insert the latest detail you've discovered, not realizing the limitations imposed by WP:DUE. Recent examples are the founding of West Point and the "republicanizing" of the military. @TheVirginiaHistorian: In the past you have helped settle some controversies and have demonstrated a useful understanding of history and historiography. Recently, however, you demonstrated lack of understanding about consensus, writing walls of opaque text insisting we include items we had decided to exclude. I'm hoping this was a one-off. Since I cannot help improve the article, it's a waste of my time to continue to try. That's why I said good-bye, Gwillhickers. I wasn't being flip. YoPienso (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC) @Yopienso: I wrote a paragraph on Jefferson's "Military Peace Establishment Act" in 1802 that created West Point and Rjensen edited on the same paragraph. I supplied reliable Scythe (2014) references well within Wikipedia policy. This paragraph was deleted from the article. There was editor concensus not to put West Point in the lede. What editor concensus was there not to mention the "Military Peace Establishment Act" that created West Point in the body of the article ? An attempt to vote on the paragraph was blocked. Jefferson needed loyalty in the military in order to republicanize the army and prevent New England succession. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC) @Yopienso: You are a great asset to the development of the article, and have time and again brought forth sources and perspectives. Though some may be in disagreement with some of your opinions, this is no reason to thrown in the towel. -- As for my "diatribe", I hardly see where this opinion constitutes that. Gw':I've no problem with 'Summary Style' as long as we are not leaving out major points, important context and entire topics. I bring up page length because entire paragraphs have simply been removed -- not rewritten to accommodate summary style. This is a reasonable reservation. You need to do more than call something a disparaging name if you are opposed to it. That only aggravates matters for the worse. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC) That's what you wrote to Viriditas. On diffs, the most recent addition is at the bottom. What you wrote to Hoppyh was: @Hoppyh: It would appear you're the one with the combative attitude. i.e.Refusal to discuss reasonable content issues, your accusation on the GA review page that I am gaming the system, not to mention your 3RR violation and refusal to even discuss matters of Church and State and how it is a major topic with Jefferson. There is no denying that this is a major topic for Jefferson which is apparently why you don't dare try to debate the idea along historical lines. Easy to see. Please get your own line straight before you vent personal frustrations over notions about my activity. All along I have acknowledged the good work being done, however, there seems to be little to no capacity among one or two editors to accept reasonable criticism. Thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC) You were responding to Hoppyh's simple and true assertion: Reference is made to today's entry by Gwillhickers in the Separation of Church and State Section of the review page. Apparently, that editor does not intend to collaborate with the reviewer, I will not further respond to what seems to me to be a semi-combative tone. Hoppyh (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC) I find your comments to Hoppyh an unfair and insulting diatribe. YoPienso (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC) I find your comments, petty, hypocritical, overlooking the fact that you have behaved in a far worse fashion, barking orders, making deletions with no discussion at a time when the article is already unstable. My "combative" remark was in response to Hoppy's accusation that I was combative -- and all you are accomplishing here is widening the gap and trashing the talk page with this peevish nonsense. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC) @Hoppyh:, the average reader is smarter than you apparently give him/her credit for. As was pointed out page length is a guideline which allows us editors various discretions where article length is concerned. This makes perfect sense, as some topics require more space if they're to be presented in a comprehensive manner. 'Encyclopedic' doesn't mean each section is to be written with no more than a paragraph consisting of a few out of context sentences. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Agree with @Cmguy777: The slow mo' edit warring needs to stop and the spirit of compromise needs to be better embraced by some editors, while another editor needs to refrain from making provocative and undiscussed deletions, blustering remarks, routinely blaming/accusing other editors, barking orders and insisting he's right. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Republican maxims of Jefferson's administration "And TVH and CMguy77 are muddying their position rather than clarifying it. First, West Point itself was so important it had to be included. Now, "republicanizing" the army is of prime importance." YoPienso (talk) 5:05 pm, 27 December. No, TVH and CMguy777 are attempting to achieve consensus, so that requires modification of earlier positions in collaboration with others. There is no interest in West Point as an academy sponsored by Jefferson, or the Military Peace Establishment Act out of context on the part of YoPienso. So lets not include them out of context. The discussion has now migrated to the larger question of Jefferson’s reform of the executive to conform with republican principles. Meacham quotes the French envoy’s report to Paris, “Mr. Jefferson doesn’t at all hesitate to say that the previous administration conducted itself under anti-republican maxims” and the new president was determined to correct such “inequalities and errors”. As Meacham observes, “Jefferson had the strength to do largely as he wished.” He had the votes in Congress. (Meacham p. 373-374) The preponderance of reliable sources including whole life biographies address Jefferson’s changes to the inherited Federalist cadre in the executive departments, including Treasury, State, Attorney General, War and Navy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC) All I did was edit in the article Jefferson's 1802 Military Peace Establishment Act that created West Point. This paragraph was deleted. My emphasis was not meant to be West Point, but rather Jefferson taking control out of the Army from Federalists. Federalists controlled four key staff officer positions and these were eliminated by the 1802 law. Jefferson was looking for loyalty in the U.S. military to Jefferson. The paragraph had reliable references. Voting on the paragraph was stopped. Only part of the paragraph was readded to the article not by Cmguy777. West Point was only part of the monumental 1802 Military Peace Law. I took alot of time on the paragraph. Rjensen seemed to have no problem concerning the paragraph since Rjensen edit the narration of the paragraph. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Agreed. I support your proposed paragraph, hoping that it would attract YoPienso's support, since it expanded the context of West Point. Apparently it was not enough to persuade his "I-just-don't-like-it" (West Point) point of view. Seeing that he was unmoved, I had hoped that enlarging the context still further to Jefferson's reforms in the executive departments would engage him, but it seems that he has quit the collegial dialogue. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Agree with TVH and Cm'. We need to cover West Point with more than a sentence or two as Jefferson's thinking there overlaps with much of his political philosophy and topics like the University of Virginia, whose curriculum was forged by many of the same ideas that West point was founded on. West point is covered well by the scholarship and as such needs to be covered here accordingly. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Edit to lede (Notes on the State of Virginia & Declaration) I've been trying to do some copyediting/removing redundancies in the article, but made this edit to the lede and thought I'd bring it to the talk since it lengthens the lede but I believe that the information belongs there. Aside from some reorganizing, this is the key sentences (as I edited): He was a skilled writer and corresponded with many influential people in America and Europe. His only full-length book, Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), is widely considered the most important American book published before 1800 while his preamble to the Declaration of Independence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language" containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history". From: "His foremost book, Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), is among the nation's momentous publications prior to 1800. … He was a skilled writer and corresponded with many influential people in America and Europe." The first part should be uncontroversial, plenty of sources describe Notes as the most important book published before 1800 and we have the sources to back it up. The second part, describing the preamble to the Declaration, does significantly expand the lede but I think — while describing him as a "skilled writer" — the cultural relevance of the Declaration of Independence is a top-line item that most readers would want to read on-the-top, so to speak. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Could we get your buy-in on the section above about the article immediately preceding this ? Hoppyh (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC) To be honest, after the West Point brouhaha, I'm not planning on engaging on anything controversial. Thanks, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 16:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC) The lead is supposed to summarize the most important aspects of the topic, as normally identified in reliable sources. I do not think the Notes reaches that level of importance compared for example with being a founding father, writing the Declaration of Independence, and serving as Secretary of State, Vice-president and President. TFD (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)